Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 510
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.060 (2026)

Motion for order compelling answer to interrogatory

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  510.060.  Motion for order compelling answer to interrogatory. — 1.  Upon the refusal of a party to answer any interrogatory submitted under section 510.020, the proponent of the question may move the court, on reasonable notice to all persons affected thereby, for an order compelling an answer.  If the motion is granted and if the court finds that the refusal was without substantial justification the court shall require the refusing party to pay to the examining party the amount of the court costs incurred in obtaining the order.  If the motion is denied and if the court finds that the motion was made without substantial justification, the court shall require the examining party to pay to the refusing party the amount of the court costs incurred in opposing the motion.

  2.  If any party or an officer, or general manager of a corporation refuses to obey an order made under subsection 1 requiring him to answer designated questions, or an order made under section 510.030 to produce any document or other thing for inspection, copying, or photographing, or to permit it to be done, or to permit entry upon land or other property, or an order made under section 510.040 requiring him to submit to a physical or mental examination, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:

  (1)  An order that the matters regarding which the questions were asked or the character or description of the thing or land, or the contents of the paper, or the physical or mental condition of the party or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;

  (2)  An order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing in evidence designated documents or things or items of testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition;

  (3)  An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.

  3.  If a party, after being served with a request under section 510.050 to admit the genuineness of any documents or the truth of any relevant matters of fact pertaining to such documents, files and serves a written sworn denial thereof and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the genuineness of any such document or the truth of any such matter of fact pertaining to such documents, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay him the court costs incurred in making such proof.  Unless the court finds that there were good reasons for the denial or that the admissions sought were of no substantial importance, the order shall be made.

  4.  If a party or an officer, or general manager of a corporation willfully fails to appear before the officer who is to take his deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or fails to return answers to interrogatories submitted under section 510.020, after proper service of such interrogatories, the court on motion and notice may strike out all or any part of any pleading of that party, or dismiss the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or enter a judgment by default against that party.

­­--------

(L. 1943 p. 353 § 89)

(1977) Striking of pleadings and entry of default held proper where appellant twice refused to answer interrogatories. In re Marriage of Dickey (A.), 553 S.W.2d 518.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1954–1989 · leading case: Sparks v. Sparks, 768 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sparks v. Sparks, 768 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “2d 483, 486 (1955) as follows: The law is that upon oral or written interrogatories being properly propounded to discover relevant and material facts peculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of the party, his refusal to answer justifies striking his pleadings.”
Franklin v. Franklin, 283 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 2× “Although plaintiff may refuse to answer self-incriminating interrogatories, yet, when she does, her action must be judged in the same manner and by the same rules as though she had refused to answer any other pertinent written or oral interrogatories.”
In Re the Marriage of Dickey, 553 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). “The discretion allowed by this rule is subject to review and will not be disturbed unless exercised unjustly.”
State Ex Rel. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co. v. McMullan, 297 S.W.2d 431 (Mo. 1956). · cites it 2× “In so far as applicable, § 510.060 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., may be a guide for enforcement.”
J.B.C. v. S.H.C., 719 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “1983); (11) wife did not seek an order compelling an answer to interrogatories as provided in § 510.060 RSMo 1978. The narrow issue is whether or not the order of the trial court striking husband’s pleadings for failure to answer interrogatories after the court overruled…”
Franklin v. Franklin, 273 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 3× “Defendant invokes Section 510.060 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which provides that upon the refusal of a party to answer interrogatories the proponent of the question may move the court for an order compelling an answer and upon refusal of a party to obey such an order the court may…”
Brader v. Rehm, 323 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). · cites it 3× “In that connection, it is appropriate to remark that the question of the existence or non-existence of certain records, which Brader complained were not made available to his accountant, might be better disposed of prior to trial.”
Hi-Plains Elevator Mach., Inc. v. Missouri Cereal Processors, Inc., 571 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). “The Missouri rule contains the lan-' guage, “after being served with notice.”
Jbc v. Shc, 719 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “1983); (11) wife did not seek an order compelling an answer to interrogatories as provided in § 510.060 RSMo 1978. The narrow issue is whether or not the order of the trial court striking husband's pleadings for failure to answer interrogatories after the court overruled…”
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.