432.047. Credit agreements, actions not to be maintained, when — credit agreement defined. — 1. For the purposes of this section, the term "credit agreement" means an agreement to lend or forbear repayment of money, to otherwise extend credit, or to make any other financial accommodation.
2. A debtor party may not maintain an action upon or a defense, regardless of legal theory in which it is based, in any way related to a credit agreement unless the credit agreement is in writing, provides for the payment of interest or for other consideration, sets forth the relevant terms and conditions, and the credit agreement is executed by the debtor and the lender.
3. (1) When a written credit agreement has been signed by a debtor, subsection 2 of this section shall not apply to any credit agreement between such debtor and creditor unless such written credit agreement contains the following language in boldface ten-point type:
"Oral or unexecuted agreements or commitments to loan money, extend credit or to forbear from enforcing repayment of a debt including promises to extend or renew such debt are not enforceable, regardless of the legal theory upon which it is based that is in any way related to the credit agreement. To protect you (borrower(s)) and us (creditor) from misunderstanding or disappointment, any agreements we reach covering such matters are contained in this writing, which is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between us, except as we may later agree in writing to modify it.".
(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary in this chapter, the provisions of this section shall apply to commercial credit agreements only and shall not apply to credit agreements for personal, family, or household purposes.
4. Nothing contained in this section shall affect the enforceability by a creditor of any promissory note, guaranty, security agreement, deed of trust, mortgage, or other instrument, agreement, or document evidencing or creating an obligation for the payment of money or other financial accommodation, lien, or security interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case:
Bailey v. Hawthorn Bank, 382 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
Bailey v. Hawthorn Bank, 382 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 24× “The question is whether the credit agreement in this case falls *93 within the terms of Section 432.047. “Under the terms of Section 432.”
BancorpSouth Bank v. Paramont Props., L.L.C., 349 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 18× “” Specifically, the trial court found that by the terms of Missouri’s commercial credit statute of frauds Section 432.047, such agreements were required to be in writing in order to be effective.”
Pulaski Bank v. C.W. Holdings, LLC, 488 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 22× “defendants’ counterclaim for lulling was barred as a matter of law by Missouri’s commercial credit agreement statute of frauds provision, Section 432.047. Pulaski noted that the C.”
Bison Park Dev., LLC v. North Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 399 S.W.3d 877 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 22× “Bison Park claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the Missouri Credit Agreement Statute, section 432.047, 1 barred its *879 causes of action against NASB.”
Big A LLC v. Lindworth Investments, LLC, 458 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “The trial court found that section 432.047, which was an alternate basis for Big A's motion for summary judgment, was inapplicable.”
Pease v. Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc., 6 A.3d 867 (Md. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In response to these allegations, Bank of America asserted that, because the borrower was seeking a commercial loan, Missouri's Commercial Credit Agreement Statute of Frauds, Mo.Rev. Stat. § 432.047, which provides that "[a] debtor may not maintain an action upon or a defense .”
Pulaski Bank v. C.W. Holdings, LLC (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 20× “defendants’ counterclaim under the clear language of Section 432.047. §§ Bancor;_)$otttli, 349 S.”
KCI Auto Auction, Inc. v. Anderson (W.D. Mo. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Finally, Anderson argues that the Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.047 required the Lucky 7 Account floor plan agreement to be in writing.”
Cnty. Bank v. Shalla (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).
“23, 2011) (quoting Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.047 (2) (2004)). 23 Until then, the statute currently on the books does not apply to the Shallas’ tort claims.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 432.047(2) — 1 case
BancorpSouth Bank v. Paramont Props., L.L.C., 349 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
“” Specifically, the trial court found that by the terms of Missouri’s commercial credit statute of frauds Section 432.047, such agreements were required to be in writing in order to be effective.”
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.