DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Missouri: what the law says

Missouri gives an owner a fast route: you file a sworn petition, the judge can order the removal immediately, and the hearing is held within forty-eight hours. But a judge signs it — nobody is put out of a Missouri house on your word alone. Being inside a building you have no right to be in is a crime here, and a Missouri officer may arrest for it without a warrant. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No. Missouri's 2024 law says in as many words that a person occupying your property without permission gets none of the protections a tenant gets. That is also what opens the fast removal route — but only for a home that nobody has rented in the last three months.

›Read the law

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

RSMo § 534.602.1(3) — "unlawful occupant" defined (H.B. 2062, eff. 2024-08-28)

“"Unlawful occupant" or "unlawful occupants", any person or persons who detain, occupy, or trespass on property containing a residential dwelling without the permission of the property owner, who otherwise have no legal right to occupy the property under state law, and who are not afforded any protections provided to a tenant under state law.”

Read the conditions on the sworn petition in § 534.602.5(1) before assuming this reaches your situation. Two of them do real work: "(g) The property has not been leased to any person for three consecutive months, and the unlawful occupant or unlawful occupants are not current or former tenants of the property pursuant to any agreement with the property owner" and "(h) The unlawful occupant or unlawful occupants are not immediate family members of the property owner." A former tenant who overstays, or a relative, is outside this section — that is the ordinary unlawful detainer track in the same chapter.

Read it at the source →

Can I just change the locks?

Not on your own — and never in another state. A judge has to sign the order and a sheriff has to serve it; only then does Missouri's statute let you change the locks. Move first and the person you put out can sue you, take the house back, and collect.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · RSMo § 534.602.11 — sheriff's fee, and standing by to keep the peace

“The sheriff is entitled to the same fee for the service of the ex parte order granted under this section as if the sheriff were serving a writ of possession under section 57.280. After the sheriff serves the order, the property owner or authorized agent may request that the sheriff stand by to keep the peace while the property owner or agent of the property owner changes the locks and removes the personal property of the unlawful occupants from the premises to or near the property line. When such a request is made, the sheriff may charge a reasonable hourly rate, and the person requesting the sheriff to stand by and keep the peace is responsible for paying the reasonable hourly rate set by the sheriff. The sheriff shall not be liable to the unlawful occupant or occupants or to any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage of property. The property owner or his or her authorized agent shall not be liable to an unlawful occupant or any other party for the loss, destruction, or damage to the personal property unless the removal was wrongful.”

Read the sequence, not the sentence. Every step in it is downstream of a court order that a judge has already signed and a sheriff has already served — the same section's subsection 9 says the sheriff enforces the order "once the court grants an order under this section." And read the last clause: the owner's protection from liability runs out where "the removal was wrongful."

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 534.602.12 — civil action for removal without just cause

“A person may bring a civil cause of action if the person was removed from the property under this section without just cause. Such person may seek restored possession to the real property, actual damages to personal property when personal property was removed, statutory damages in the amount of one thousand dollars, and reimbursement of court costs.”

Read it at the source →

3 · RSMo § 441.233.1 — landlord's unlawful removal or exclusion of a tenant

“Except as provided in section 441.065, a landlord or its agent who removes or excludes a tenant or the tenant's personal property from the premises without judicial process and court order, or causes such removal or exclusion, or causes the removal of the doors or locks to such premises, shall be deemed guilty of forcible entry and detainer as described in chapter 534.”

Note the scope, and note what we did not find. This section speaks of a LANDLORD and a TENANT, and § 534.602.1(3) says an unlawful occupant is not afforded a tenant's protections. We looked for a Missouri appellate decision resolving whether § 441.233 reaches a person who was never a tenant and did not find one we could fetch. Untested is not the same as permitted — and the person who finds out which it is will be the defendant. DeedProof does not advise on this and never will.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Yes — the arrest power is there on the face of the statutes. Being inside a building you have no right to be in is trespass in the first degree, a low-grade misdemeanor, and Missouri lets an officer arrest without a warrant on reasonable grounds for any misdemeanor. What is left for the officer to decide is whether the person inside is trespassing at all — and that is the next question.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · RSMo § 569.140.1–.2 — trespass in the first degree

“1. A person commits the offense of trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property. 2. A person does not commit the offense of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) Actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.”

Subsection 2 is the fence-or-notice condition, and read where it lands: it qualifies entering or remaining "upon real property" — the open-land case. Subsection 1 names a building or inhabitable structure separately.

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 569.140.3 — grading

“The offense of trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor, unless the victim is intentionally targeted as a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 556.061, or the victim is targeted because he or she is a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity to a law enforcement officer, in which case it is a class A misdemeanor. If the building or real property is part of a nuclear power plant, the offense of trespass in the first degree is a class E felony.”

This is the link that killed the previous market elsewhere — an offense graded so low that the officer may only write a citation. Missouri grades this a misdemeanor, and the next link is the state's warrantless-arrest statute at that grade. Read them in order.

Read it at the source →

3 · RSMo § 544.216 — powers of arrest; arrest without warrant

“Except as otherwise provided in section 544.157, any sheriff or deputy sheriff, any member of the Missouri state highway patrol, and any county or municipal law enforcement officer in this state, except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons or which does not have at least four full-time nonelected peace officers unless such subdivision or municipality has elected to come under and is operating pursuant to the provisions of sections 590.100 to 590.150, may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any ordinance or law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, over which such officer has jurisdiction.”

Note the carve-out in the middle of the sentence: officers of a political subdivision or municipality under two thousand people, or without at least four full-time nonelected peace officers, are excepted unless the subdivision has opted in. Note also that the power runs on "reasonable grounds to believe" — which is the officer's judgment about the very thing the intruder's paperwork is designed to cloud.

Read it at the source →

4 · RSMo § 534.604.1, .3 — arrest for violating the removal order

“1. When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a party, against whom an ex parte order under section 534.602 has been entered and who has notice of such order entered, has committed an act in violation of such order, the law enforcement officer shall arrest the offending party-respondent regardless of whether the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting law enforcement officer. … 3. A violation of the terms and conditions of an ex parte order under section 534.602 shall be a class A misdemeanor.”

Two other provisions sit alongside it. § 534.602.10: "If appropriate, the sheriff may arrest any person found in the dwelling for trespass, outstanding warrants, or any other legal cause." And § 534.602.13: "The provisions of this section do not limit the rights of a property owner or limit the authority of a law enforcement officer to arrest an unlawful occupant for trespassing, vandalism, theft, or other crimes." These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission — whether the officer at the door believes the person inside had it. Both the trespass law and the fast removal law turn on the owner's permission, and to weigh that the officer also has to know who the owner is. Missouri asks you to swear you are the owner. It does not name anyone whose job it is to check.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 2 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · RSMo § 569.140.1 — the words the offense hinges on

“A person commits the offense of trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property.”

The civil side hinges on the same fact. § 534.602.1(3) defines an unlawful occupant as one occupying "without the permission of the property owner", and § 534.602.5(1)(e) makes the owner swear it: "The unlawful occupant or unlawful occupants are occupying the property without the permission of the property owner and are not guests of the property owner nor otherwise authorized to make use of the property."

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 534.602.5(1) — what the sworn petition must set forth

“Upon the filing of a verified petition under this section, and for good cause shown in the verified petition, the court shall immediately issue an ex parte order to remove the respondent. The assertion of sufficient evidence that the person or persons are unlawfully occupying property containing a residential dwelling shall constitute good cause for purposes of this section. The verified petition shall set forth the following: (a) The petitioner is the property owner or authorized agent of the property owner;”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read RSMo §§ 534.602 and 534.604 in full, and § 569.140 in full, on the Missouri Revisor's own server. We looked for any provision telling a judge, a clerk, a sheriff or an officer how to establish that the person who signed the petition actually owns the building — a deed check, a recorder's lookup, a registry, anything. We found no such provision. Note the second sentence of subsection 5(1): the owner's own assertion is itself what the statute makes "good cause." Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

A sworn petition to a judge, who can sign the removal order the same day — then the sheriff carries it out. If your home was rented in the last three months, or the person was ever your tenant, that route is closed to you and you are back on the ordinary eviction track.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · RSMo § 534.602.2 — the petition

“Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, a property owner or his or her authorized agent may seek relief for the removal of a person or persons unlawfully occupying property containing a residential dwelling under this section by filing a verified petition in the county or city not within a county where the property is located.”

Subsection 3 requires the circuit clerks to explain the procedure to an owner who has no lawyer, to post notice that they will do so, and to do it "without cost to the litigants" — and says that doing so "shall not constitute the practice of law as defined in section 484.010."

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 534.602.5(2) — the order, and the 48-hour hearing

“An ex parte order to have the unlawful occupant or unlawful occupants removed from property containing a residential dwelling entered by the court shall take effect when entered and shall remain in effect until there is valid service of process and a hearing is held on the motion. Such hearing shall be held within forty-eight hours of filing the verified petition unless good cause is shown for a delay. The court shall deny the ex parte order and dismiss the petition if the petitioner is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause.”

Read the last sentence. The judge is the check: the court "shall deny the ex parte order and dismiss the petition if the petitioner is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause." And subsection 9: "Once the court grants an order under this section, the sheriff of the county or city not within a county in which the property is located shall enforce such order by removing the respondent from the property."

Read it at the source →

3 · RSMo § 534.030.1 — unlawful detainer defined

“… when any person wrongfully and without force, by disseisin, shall obtain and continue in possession of any lands, tenements or other possessions, and after demand made, in writing, for the delivery of such possession of the premises by the person having the legal right to such possession, or the person's agent or attorney, shall refuse or neglect to vacate such possession, such person is guilty of an "unlawful detainer".”

The ellipsis is at the front only: this is the last of several clauses in a single long sentence, and it is the one that reaches a person who was never a tenant. A written demand for possession is an element of it — § 534.050 governs how that demand is made and proved.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Days, not months, where the fast section fits. The judge can sign the removal order the moment you file, and the hearing runs within forty-eight hours unless there is good reason to delay. Filing costs what an ordinary small civil claim costs, and the judge can order the occupant to pay your court costs and your repair bill.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · RSMo § 534.602.5(2) — the 48-hour clock

“Such hearing shall be held within forty-eight hours of filing the verified petition unless good cause is shown for a delay.”

"Unless good cause is shown for a delay" is doing real work in that sentence, and the statute does not define what will satisfy it. Nothing in § 534.602 sets an outer limit on the delay.

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 534.602.4 — filing fees and court costs

“Filing fees and court costs under this section shall be the same as filing fees and court costs required when filing a claim in associate circuit court.”

NO DOLLAR FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, and that is deliberate. The statute names none, and Missouri circuit court filing fees and sheriff service fees are set outside it, court by court. Every fee figure on this site appears verbatim in a document we fetched or it does not appear.

Read it at the source →

3 · RSMo § 534.602.7(6)–(8) — what the court may order the occupant to pay

“(6) Order the respondent to pay all costs of repair to the petitioner's premises or dwelling unit relating to damages caused by the respondent; (7) Order the respondent to pay all costs associated with service of any ex parte order authorized against the respondent; or (8) Order the respondent to pay court costs.”

These sit under subsection 7, which opens: "When the court has, after a hearing on the petition, issued an order for relief to permanently exclude an unlawful occupant or unlawful occupants from the petitioner's property, it may additionally…" — so they follow the hearing, not the first order, and each is a "may", not a "shall". Attorney's fees are not on the list.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

No — a judge signs it first. Missouri comes close: you swear a petition, and the court can order the removal immediately, without the other side present. But it is the court that orders it and the sheriff who carries the order out, and a bill to widen the statute this year never reached a vote in the Senate.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

1 · RSMo § 534.602.5(1) — the court issues the order

“Upon the filing of a verified petition under this section, and for good cause shown in the verified petition, the court shall immediately issue an ex parte order to remove the respondent.”

"The court shall immediately issue" is the whole answer to this column. It is fast, and it happens without the occupant being heard — but a judicial officer signs it, and § 534.602.5(2) requires that same court to deny the order and dismiss the petition where the petitioner "is not authorized to seek relief or does not show good cause."

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 534.602.9 — sheriff enforcement

“Once the court grants an order under this section, the sheriff of the county or city not within a county in which the property is located shall enforce such order by removing the respondent from the property.”

Read it at the source →

3 · Missouri House, Bill Summary of HCS HB 2099 (2026) — Perfected

“Currently, property owners can file a petition to seek relief for the removal of any unlawful occupants from property containing a residential dwelling. This bill replaces the petition's coverage and applies it to private noncommercial property.”

READ WHAT IT WOULD AND WOULD NOT HAVE DONE. HB 2099 (Amato) would have swapped "property containing a residential dwelling" for "private noncommercial property" and tidied the immunity language in § 534.604. It leaves the court in the loop — the ex parte order still issues from a judge. STATUS AS OF 2026-07-14, from the House's own record: the Bill Information page for HB 2099 gives the "Last Action" as "03/23/2026 - Second read and referred: General Laws(S)", and the Bill Actions page for the same bill records, against 3/11/2026, "Third Read and Passed (H) - AYES: 136 NOES: 1 PRESENT: 9". No Senate committee action of record follows, and the 2026 regular session has since ended. Verify against the legislature's own status pages before acting on this.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long before they can claim they own it?

Ten years. And note how Missouri writes the rule — as a deadline on YOU: your action to recover the property has to be brought within ten years of the last time you held or possessed it.

›Read the law — 2 provisions

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

1 · RSMo § 516.010 — actions for recovery of lands, commenced when

“No action for the recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, shall be commenced, had or maintained by any person, whether citizen, denizen, alien, resident or nonresident of this state, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, grantor or other person under whom he claims was seized or possessed of the premises in question, within ten years before the commencement of such action.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH: the statute states the ten years and nothing else. Missouri courts require the occupier to prove more than the passage of time — the five-element test Missouri lawyers cite. We could not quote it here: courts.mo.gov returned 403 to every attempt to fetch an opinion on 2026-07-14, and we do not put words in a court's mouth. Do not read the bare ten years as the whole rule; ask a Missouri lawyer what the elements are.

Read it at the source →

2 · RSMo § 516.040 — possession of land under color of title, effect

“The possession, under color of title, of a part of a track or lot of land, in the name of the whole tract claimed, and exercising, during the time of such possession, the usual acts of ownership over the whole tract so claimed, shall be deemed a possession of the whole of such tract.”

This is the provision that makes a bad piece of paper dangerous to a vacant property left alone for years — "color of title" is written evidence of title that need not be good. The section is printed with "track" where "tract" is plainly meant; the typo is the Revisor's, and we quote it as printed.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

This page is the law. What it costs you in Missouri — the filing fee, the sheriff’s bill, the months, and whether you ever see the money again.

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (9)

RSMo § 534.602.9 — sheriff enforcementRSMo § 441.233.1 — landlord's unlawful removal or exclusion of a tenantRSMo § 569.140.1 — the words the offense hinges onRSMo § 544.216 — powers of arrest; arrest without warrantRSMo § 534.604.1, .3 — arrest for violating the removal orderRSMo § 534.030.1 — unlawful detainer definedMissouri House, Bill Summary of HCS HB 2099 (2026) — PerfectedRSMo § 516.010 — actions for recovery of lands, commenced whenRSMo § 516.040 — possession of land under color of title, effect

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.