Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 70
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.695 (2026)

Rights accrued under sections 70.600 to 70.755 not subject to garnishment, execution or bankruptcy proceedings, exceptions

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

  70.695.  Rights accrued under sections 70.600 to 70.755 not subject to garnishment, execution or bankruptcy proceedings, exceptions. — The right of a person to an allowance, to the return of accumulated contributions, the allowance itself, any allowance option, and any other right accrued or accruing under the provisions of sections 70.600 to 70.755, and all moneys belonging to the system shall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, the operation of bankruptcy or insolvency laws, or to any other process of law whatsoever, and shall be unassignable, except as is specifically provided in sections 70.600 to 70.755; except that:

  (1)  Any political subdivision shall have the right of setoff for any claim arising from embezzlement by or fraud of a member, retirant, or beneficiary;

  (2)  Such rights shall not be exempt from attachment or execution in a proceeding instituted for the support and maintenance of children.  In all such actions described in this subdivision, the system shall be entitled to collect a fee of up to twenty dollars chargeable against the person for each delinquent attachment, execution, sequestration or garnishment payment; and

  (3)  A retirant may authorize the board to have deducted from his or her allowance the payments required of him or her to provide for health insurance or long-term care insurance premiums in accordance with Section 402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

­­--------

(L. 1967 p. 141 § 20, A.L. 1988 H.B. 1098, A.L. 1992 H.B. 1440, A.L. 2012 H.B. 1039)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2016 · leading case: Smith v. Missouri Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys., 235 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Missouri Local Gov't Employees Ret. Sys., 235 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 28× “Because Section 70.695, RSMO 2000, 1 prohibits the garnishment or *580 attachment of the state-regulated pension fund, we affirm the dismissal of the motion for failure to state a claim.”
Jennifer L. Joyner v. Christopher E. Joyner, 460 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 15× “Division of LAGERS Pension In Point I, Wife contends that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in awarding her a portion of Husband’s monthly LAGERS retirement benefit because, pursuant to section 70.695, such benefits are specifically “unassignable.”
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Ken Kauffman & Sons Excavating, L.L.C., 248 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “140, which provides that no assets are exempt from execution for spousal maintenance, and § 70.695, which protects the MOLAGERS fund from any execution other than for child support.”
In Re Taylor, 84 B.R. 159 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1988). “After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court entered an order on August 18, 1987 concluding that the Debtor was not entitled to claim an exemption pursuant to § 70.695. The issue of whether the Debtor's interest in the Pension Plan was an asset of the estate was not…”
Kathryn J. Landewee v. John E. Landewee (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “3 Section 70.695, RSMo. (Cum. Supp. 2016) provides that: The right of a person to an allowance, to the return of accumulated contributions, the allowance itself, any allowance option, and any other right accrued or accruing 7 exempt from execution for maintenance.”
Davis v. Bi-State Dev. Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metro. Dist. (In re Taylor), 84 B.R. 159 (E.D. Mo. 1988). “After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court entered an order on August 18, 1987 concluding that the Debtor was not entitled to claim an exemption pursuant to § 70.695. The issue of whether the Debtor's interest in the Pension Plan was an asset of the estate was not…”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.695(2): 1 case
Jennifer L. Joyner v. Christopher E. Joyner, 460 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “Division of LAGERS Pension In Point I, Wife contends that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in awarding her a portion of Husband’s monthly LAGERS retirement benefit because, pursuant to section 70.695, such benefits are specifically “unassignable.”
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.