Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.250 (2026)

Married persons to hold real and personal property as separate property

✓ current as of May 2026

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

451.250. Married persons to hold real and personal property as separate property — liable for what. — 1. All real estate and any personal property, including rights in action, belonging to any man or woman at his or her marriage, or which may have come to him or her during coverture, by gift, bequest or inheritance, or by purchase with his or her separate money or means, or be due as the wages of his or her separate labor, or has grown out of any violation of his or her personal rights, shall, together with all income, increase and profits thereof, be and remain his or her separate property and under his or her sole control, and shall not be liable to be taken by any process of law for the debts of his wife or her husband.

2. This section shall not affect the title of any husband or wife to any personal property reduced to his or her possession with the express assent of his or her spouse; provided, that said personal property shall not be deemed to have been reduced to possession by the husband or wife by his or her use, occupancy, care or protection thereof, but the same shall remain his or her separate property, unless by the terms of said assent, in writing, full authority shall have been given by the husband or wife to the spouse to sell, encumber or otherwise dispose of the same for his or her own use and benefit, but such property shall be subject to execution for the payments of the debts of the spouse contracted before or during marriage, and for any debt or liability of his or her spouse created for necessaries for the spouse or family; and any such married man or woman may, in his or her own name and without joining his or her spouse, as a party plaintiff institute and maintain any action, in any of the courts of this state having jurisdiction, for the recovery of any such personal property, including rights in action, as aforesaid, with the same force and effect as if such married man or woman was ^* not married; provided, any judgment for costs in any such proceeding rendered against any such married spouse, may be satisfied out of any separate property of such married spouse subject to execution; provided, that before any such execution shall be levied upon any separate estate of a married spouse, he or she shall have been made a party to the action, and all questions involved shall have been therein determined, and shall be recited in the judgment and the execution thereon.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3390, A.L. 2001 H.B. 537)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3003; 1919 § 7328; 1909 § 8309

*Word "a" appears here in original rolls.

(1954) Where husband and wife each furnished funds to purchase farm and each supplied livestock and contributed to purchase of tools, but husband actually controlled and operated farm, wife was not entitled, after eight years, to one-half of proceeds of sale of some of the stock and tools. Herbert v. Herbert (A.), 272 S.W.2d 705.

(1955) Wife held entitled to sue husband under § 451.250 for premarital personal tort committed by him in automobile accident. Hamilton v. Fulkerson (Mo.), 285 S.W.2d 642. Comment Mo. L. Rev. Vol. XXII, p. 216 (1957).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: Brawner v. Brawner, 327 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1959).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brawner v. Brawner, 327 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 34× “The statutes upon which the plaintiff mainly relies are Sections 451.250, 451.290, 507.010 and 537.”

Hathman v. Waters, 586 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 18× “On this appeal, Arzetta argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the contract because: (1) Arzetta’s joinder in the contract was necessary to its validity, in that she had an ownership interest in the stock of the Corporation owned by Hathman by way of a resulting trust…”

Hamilton v. Fulkerson, 285 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 18× “Important for present purposes is the fact that neither in Rogers nor Willott did the court consider the effect of present Section 451.250.' In Willott the court pointed out that that section related only to the separate property rights of a’married woman and, therefore; because…”

Berry v. Harmon, 329 S.W.2d 784 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 9× “Respondent, however, relies upon Section 451.250 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. and upon Hamilton v.”

Helena Chem. Co. v. True (In Re True), 285 B.R. 405 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2002). · cites it 7× “On the other hand, Shirley True, the sole defendant in the Trustee’s adversary action, argues that the farm property was and is Shirley’s separate property by virtue of the provisions of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.250 (1)(CUM.SUPP.1988).”

United States v. Sigillito, 938 F. Supp. 2d 877 (E.D. Mo. 2013). · cites it 12× “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 451.250. Thus, undér section 451.”

Townsend v. Townsend, 708 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Sections 451.250, 451.290, RSMo 1978; 507.”

State v. Cox, 784 S.W.2d 244 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “2 James has no ownership interest since Patricia’s interest is her separate property, § 451.250, RSMo 1986 (property devised to spouse is separate property), and the common-law interests of a husband in his wife’s property have been abolished by statute.”

Smith v. Smith, 300 S.W.2d 275 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “2d 642, 645 , which holds that a wife can sue her husband for antenuptial tort and, referring to § 451.250 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., emphasizes that the statute provides that in respect to her separate property and under her sole control she may maintain any action for the recovery…”

Tryon v. Casey, 416 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 4× “The provisions of the 1875 statute as quoted above are, in exact and complete text, contained in present Section 451.250 VAMS. Obviously, it was the purpose of these statutes to secure to a married woman the wages of her “separate labor” as her “separate property”, and to…”

Root v. Root, 774 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “On appeal the Supreme Court of Missouri noted that § 451.250, RSMo 1949, provided: “... any personal property, including rights in action, belonging to any woman at her marriage .”

Noll v. Noll, 286 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 2× “It must be kept in mind that prior to the adoption of our Married Women’s Act, Section 451.250 et seq., RSMo 1949, V.A.M.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.250(1) — 1 case

Helena Chem. Co. v. True (In Re True), 285 B.R. 405 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2002). “On the other hand, Shirley True, the sole defendant in the Trustee’s adversary action, argues that the farm property was and is Shirley’s separate property by virtue of the provisions of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.250 (1)(CUM.SUPP.1988).”

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.