Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 514.205 (2026)

Frivolous suit, consequences of filing

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

  514.205.  Frivolous suit, consequences of filing — limitations. — 1.  In any civil action or part of a civil action pending before any division of any court of this state including the probate division of the circuit court, if the court finds after a hearing for such purpose that the cause was initiated, or a defense was asserted, or a motion was filed, or any proceeding therein was had frivolously and in bad faith, the court shall require the party who initiated such cause, asserted such defense, filed such motion, or caused such proceeding to be had to pay the other party named in such action the amount of the costs attributable thereto and the reasonable expenses incurred by the party opposing such cause, defense, motion, or proceeding, including reasonable attorney's fees and compensation of said party for the time reasonably required of the party to oppose such cause, defense, motion or proceeding.  Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating any liability on the part of any attorney representing a party in the proceeding who in good faith acted at the specific direction of his client in initiating the case, asserting the defense, filing the motion, or causing the proceeding to be had.

  2.  The provisions of this section shall not apply to specific conduct occurring prior to September 28, 1985.  The provisions of this section shall not apply to proceedings brought in the nature of a civil action where a convicted person seeks a judicial review of his conviction.

­­--------

(L. 1985 S.B. 5, et al. § 2)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pyle, 518 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pyle, 518 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 22× “One of these “counterclaims” (“HCC 1”) relied on section 514.205 2 in claiming that Bank had pursued its action frivolously and in bad faith.”
Perkel v. Stringfellow, 19 S.W.3d 141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “” As noted in Respondent’s appellate brief, section 514.205, RSMo 1994, states: In any civil action or part of a civil action pending before any division of any court of this state .”
Bothe v. Bothe, 266 S.W.3d 321 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “03(c) or Section 514.205 unless the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.”
Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “In Point II, Robin Farms claims that the trial court erred in imposing, sua sponte, sanctions against it and its attorney pursuant to § 514.205 3 and Rule 55.03(c)(1)(B) because the court abused its discretion in doing so in that Robin Farms’s claims were not presented or…”
Noland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 853 S.W.2d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “03 and section 514.205, RSMo Supp.1992, sanctions against plaintiff.”
Dave R. Williams & Candice J. Williams v. HSBC Bank USA, N.a., Defendant-respondent., 467 S.W.3d 836 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “In their petition and their brief, Appellants cited Section 514.205 in support of their claim for damages for frivolous proceedings.”
Davis v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (E.D. Mo. 2006). · cites it 5× “§ 514.205 (emphasis added). The limitation cited by the plaintiff, which circumscribes liability for attorneys acting in good faith and at the specific direction of a client, does not apply to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.”
State Ex Rel. Fisher v. McKenzie, 754 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. 1988). · cites it 2× “Defendants argue if relators’ dismissal is effective they will be harmed in that they will be prevented from filing their “mandatory” counterclaim based on the frivolous suit statute, section 514.205. That counterclaim could not be re-filed because the suit alleged to be…”
Cologna v. Farmers & Merchants Ins. Co., 785 S.W.2d 691 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “16154 is Paulette’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling denying an award of fees, costs and other sanctions pursuant to § 514.205, Rule 55.03 and Rule 84.19. The appeals were consolidated for hearing and disposition.”
Temple Stephens Co. v. Westenhaver, 776 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “100, RSMo 1986, or, alternatively, as a sanction against appellants as permitted by § 514.205, RSMo 1986, for filing a “frivolous appeal.”
Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Muegler, 775 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Section 514.205, R.S.Mo., 1986. Recently, our Supreme Court adopted Rule 55.”
Jeffrey Henry v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Appellants also sought attorney’s fees under Section 514.205, which defines and provides a remedy for a "frivolous suit.”
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.