Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.140 (2026)

No property exempt from attachment or execution, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  452.140.  No property exempt from attachment or execution, when. — No property shall be exempt from attachment or execution in a proceeding instituted by a person for maintenance, nor from attachment or execution upon a judgment or order issued to enforce a decree for alimony or for the support and maintenance of children.  And all wages due to the defendant shall be subject to garnishment on attachment or execution in any proceedings mentioned in this section, whether the wages are due from the garnishee to the defendant for the last thirty days' service or not.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3377, A.L. 1957 p. 391, A.L. 2001 H.B. 537)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 2990; 1919 § 7315; 1909 § 8296

(1952) Garnishment on judgment in divorce action for support and maintenance of minor children held limited to ten percent of wages of defendant who had remarried, had children and was head of family. York v. York (A.), 249 S.W.2d 870.

(1957) Where judgment consisting of $1,243.33 for alimony and $2,486.67 for child support was revived in 1953 against nonresident defendant, garnishment could reach only 10% of amount of defendant's wages for child support but entire amount of wages could be seized to satisfy judgment for alimony.  Ferneau v. Armour & Co. (A.), 303 S.W.2d 161.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1955–2019 · leading case: Smith v. Missouri Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys., 235 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
Smith v. Missouri Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys., 235 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14× “Smith further relies on Section 452.140, which provides that “[n]o property shall be exempt from attachment or execution in a proceeding instituted by a married woman for maintenance.”
Ferneau v. Armour & Co., 303 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 17× “Another point of chief insistence by plaintiff is that the exception from exemption afforded by Section 452.140 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. extends to judgments for child support rendered in divorce cases.”
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Ken Kauffman & Sons Excavating, L.L.C., 248 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “2007), this Court was confronted with a conflict between *111 § 452.140, which provides that no assets are exempt from execution for spousal maintenance, and § 70.”
Rusk v. Rusk, 859 S.W.2d 751 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “” They further allege “contractual maintenance” is not alimony as that term is used in § 452.140. Section 169.090 provides: Neither the funds belonging to the [public school] retirement system nor any benefit accrued or accruing to any person under the provisions of sections 169.”
Phillips v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs. Child Support Enf't Div., 723 S.W.2d 2 (Mo. 1987). · cites it 8× “By her petitions, the guardian ad litem sought a declaration that §§ 452.140, RSMo 1978, and 454.505, RSMo Cum.”
Marriage of Wills v. Wills, 750 S.W.2d 567 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “528 and the Dissolution Law, § 452.140 so as to determine whether one partner’s interest in a partnership is subject to execution to enforce a judgment for his arrearages for child support.”
Baird v. Baird, 843 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Section 452.140 RSMo 1986 allows a spouse to attach or execute against any of the debtor spouse’s property to enforce a decree for maintenance or child support.”
Patton v. Patton, 573 S.W.2d 71 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 7× “§ 452.140: “No property shall be exempt from attachment or execution in a proceeding instituted by a married woman for maintenance, nor from attachment or execution upon a judgment or order issued to enforce a decree for alimony or for the support and maintenance of children.”
Davis v. Thompson, 619 S.W.2d 754 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 9× “The wife argued in the trial court and continues to argue vigorously here that Section 452.140, RSMo 1978 enables her to reach the funds held by the garnishees on behalf of Davis regardless of any objection on their part.”
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 626 S.W.2d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “The husband’s protestations that his union pension plan agreement and federal law prohibit assignment of his pension payments are similarly destitute of merit.”
Geiwitz v. Geiwitz, 473 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 7× “The Missouri Legislature has set out the public policy of this state in Section 452.140, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. This statute was last amended in 1957.”
Dyer v. Martin Loan & Fin. Co., 281 S.W.2d 633 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 6× “” Thereafter, on June 11, 1954, the trial judge filed a memorandum in said cause in which he held that because the judgment in the divorce action was solely for child support and attorney’s fees, the provisions of Section 452.140 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., did not apply, and the…”
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.