Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 429.210 (2026)

The judgment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

429.210. The judgment. — The court shall ascertain, by a fair trial in the usual way, the amount of the indebtedness for which the lien is prosecuted, and may render judgment therefor in any sum not exceeding the amount claimed in the demand filed with the lien, together with interest and costs, although the creditor may have unintentionally failed to enter in his account filed the full amount of credits to which the debtor may be entitled.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3557)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3167; 1919 § 7227; 1909 § 8223

(1967) Interest is includable in any mechanic's lien judgment, including those situations where the owner is not in privity with the contractor. Mid-West Engineering and Construction Co. v. Campagna (Mo.), 421 S.W.2d 229.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: KC Excavating & Grading Inc. v. Crane Constr. Co., 141 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

KC Excavating & Grading Inc. v. Crane Constr. Co., 141 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Section 429.210, RSMo 2000, says, “The court .”

Missouri Land Dev. Specialties, LLC v. Concord Excavating Co., 269 S.W.3d 489 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “And second, the bank ignores the mechanic’s hen law of this state, in particular, Section 429.210. That section provides that the trial court may render judgment “in any sum not exceeding the amount claimed in the demand filed with the hen, together with interest and costs.”

Dave Kolb Grading, Inc. v. Lieberman Corp., 837 S.W.2d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Section 429.210, RSMo (1986) provides that the trial court may render judgment “in any sum not exceeding the amount claimed in the demand filed with the lien, together with interest and costs.”

Glenstone Block Co. v. Pebworth, 264 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “1967) (holding that section 429.210 7 allows for the payment of prejudgment interest).”

Foley Co. v. Walnut Assocs., 597 S.W.2d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “In the instant case, § 429.210 RSMo 1978 expressly authorizes prejudgment interest.”

Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Assocs., Inc., 573 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “argues that the state court should not have included interest in the judgment, because the subject matter of the action involved a bankruptcy which is a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The trial court, in a mechanic’s lien action, may render judgment for…”

Mid-West Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. Campagna, 421 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 4× “This rule is identical with Section 429.210, which has been part of the mechanic’s lien law since 1866, G.”

ROY MEDLIN v. RLC, INC., Defedant-Respondent, & JEREMIAH J. HAYES, Intervenors-Respondents., 467 S.W.3d 865 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “” Medlin then argues that because section 429.210, RSMo 2000, mandates prejudgment interest on mechanic’s lien amounts, the introductory language to the mechanic’s lien judgment 3 makes the prejudg *869 ment interest — the second damage element awarded in the Count II judgment—…”

A. E. Birk & Son Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Malan Constr. Co., 548 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “A lien account is not vitiated by an unintentional failure to enter all of the credits to which the account is entitled, § 429.210 RSMo. 1969, nor will a lien fail due to a good faith inclusion of a charge which later is proved to have been excessive.”

Collector of Revenue ex rel. Dir. of Collections v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Land Tax Liens, 453 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 2× “In particular, this holding does not apply to an entity that has filed a mechanic’s lien claim — or a subsequent mechanic’s lien petition — but for which judgment has not been entered under sections 429.210 to 429.240. 1 Beemer Construction Company (“BCC”) and Seal-O-Matic…”

W. H. Powell Lumber Co. v. Fed. Land Bank Ass'n of Mountain Grove-Rolla, 561 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “1975 — Without ascertaining, “by a fair trial in the usual way, the amount of the indebtedness for which the lien is prosecuted” (§ 429.210 and Rule 101.06), 1 judgments were entered as follows: “ .”

Constr. Equip. Mgmt., Inc. v. Dunhill Dev. Corp., 892 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Further, § 429.210, RSMo 1986, provides: The court shall ascertain, by a fair trial in the usual way, the amount of the indebtedness for which the lien is prosecuted, and may render judgment therefore in any sum not exceeding the amount claimed in the demand filed with the hen,…”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.