Missouri boards that sue their critics now face a 60-day dismissal motion and mandatory fees
Missouri boards that sue their critics now face a 60-day dismissal motion and mandatory fees
2026-09-12 · Missouri · Legislation
What happened. On 28 August 2026 Missouri replaced its narrow anti-SLAPP statute with the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. The old law protected speech connected to a proceeding before a government body. The new one protects the exercise of free speech on any matter of public concern — and if the speaker files a special motion and wins, the party that sued them pays their legal fees.1
The bill is Senate Bill 1067 (2026), sponsored by Senator Mike Henderson, handled in the House by Representative Ben Keathley. The Governor signed it on 13 July 2026. It repeals section 537.528, RSMo, and enacts section 537.529 in its place.
What the act covers
“537.529. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the 'Uniform Public Expression Protection Act'.”
Per the official Senate summary, it creates procedures for dismissal of a cause of action based on a person's:
“(1) Communication in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; (2) Communication on an issue under consideration or review in a legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceeding; or (3) Exercise of the right of freedom of speech or of the press, the right to assemble or petition, or the right of association, guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Missouri Constitution, on a matter of public concern.”
What it replaced, and why the change is large
The repealed section 537.528 opened:
“[537.528. 1. Any action against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or public meeting, in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or any political subdivision thereof …]”
That is a narrow gate. An owner's post on a neighbourhood Facebook group about how the board spent the reserve fund did not obviously pass through it. Under section 537.529, category (3) reaches the exercise of free speech on a matter of public concern with no proceeding requirement at all.
The mechanics
From the official Senate summary of SB 1067:
- A special motion to dismiss, filed within 60 days of service of the pleading (later on good cause). The court “shall hear and rule on such motion no later than 60 days after the filing.”
- An automatic stay of all other proceedings between the moving and responding party — “including discovery and any pending hearings or motions” — on filing, continuing until the order is entered and the appeal period expires.
- An interlocutory appeal within 21 days of an order denying the motion, during which “all proceedings between all parties shall be stayed until the conclusion of the appeal.”
- Dismissal is with prejudice where the movant shows the claim is covered, the respondent fails to show an exclusion, and the respondent cannot make a prima facie case on each essential element.
- Fee shifting: “if the moving party prevails on the motion … such costs, fees, and expenses shall be awarded to the moving party.” A voluntary dismissal with prejudice establishes that the movant prevailed. The responding party recovers fees only if it prevails and the court finds the motion was “frivolous or filed solely with the intent to delay the proceeding.”
The date is a hard line
“15. The provisions of this section shall apply to any civil action filed, or any cause of action asserted in a civil action, on or after August 28, 2026.”
Cases already pending stay under the repealed statute.
The board-level consequence, stated plainly
A Missouri association that sues a vocal owner for defamation, or a recall organiser for tortious interference, or the operator of a critical neighbourhood page, is now exposed to a motion that can end the case in roughly four months, with prejudice, before any discovery, and leave the association paying the defendant's lawyer.
That is a different risk profile from the one most boards and their counsel are working from. Under the old statute, a suit over an owner's social-media criticism was an ordinary defamation case: slow, expensive for both sides, and settleable. Under section 537.529 the defendant has a fast, cheap, fee-shifted exit, and the association's leverage — the cost and nuisance of being sued — is largely gone.
It cuts both ways, and that is worth knowing too
- An owner or a board member sued by a developer over public criticism of construction quality, or over testimony at a city zoning hearing, now has the same tool. Category (1) and (2) cover communications in and about governmental proceedings expressly.
- A director sued personally for statements made at an annual meeting, in a board newsletter, or at a municipal hearing can move under the act. Whether the statement is on “a matter of public concern” is the question the motion turns on.
- A management company is partly excluded. The act does not apply “against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services if the cause of action arises out of a communication related to the sale or lease of such goods or services.” A management company's communications about selling its services fall outside. Its communications about community governance are a different question.
- Suits against government are outside it. The act does not apply to claims against a governmental unit or its officials acting officially, or to a governmental enforcement action against an imminent threat to public health or safety. An association suing a city is not facing this motion.
What to do about it
- Treat any litigation against an owner over speech as a fee-exposure decision, made by the full board, on written advice. Not a cease-and-desist decision delegated to counsel and a president. The downside is now the association's own costs plus the defendant's.
- Notify the D&O carrier immediately, not after the motion is filed. The 60-day motion window and the automatic stay mean the case's shape is fixed early. A carrier told about the claim in month four has fewer options than one told in week one.
- Separate the remedies you actually have. Most of what boards want to stop — a false statement of fact circulating about the association's finances, a member misusing the membership roster, harassment of staff or a director — has routes other than a defamation suit: a corrected disclosure to members, enforcement of a records-use restriction, a rule adopted under the declaration, or in the sharpest cases a criminal complaint. Section 537.529 does not touch any of them. Subsection 5 also preserves other remedies “including civil actions for defamation” — the act changes the procedure and the cost, not the existence of the claim.
- Document the matter-of-public-concern question before filing. The motion succeeds or fails on whether the speech is covered and whether the association can make a prima facie case on every element. A board that cannot articulate, in advance, the specific false statement of fact, its publication, and the provable damage, is a board that is going to lose the motion.
- If the association is the defendant, calendar the 60 days from service. This applies to an association sued over its own public statements — a developer suing over what the board told members about construction defects, for instance. The motion is a right with a deadline, and the deadline is short.
Where this sits in Missouri association law
Missouri has no general homeowners-association statute, which means an association's power over an owner comes almost entirely from the recorded declaration plus Chapter 355 corporate law. Litigation has therefore been a comparatively large part of how Missouri boards enforce and defend their position. This act narrows one of the more aggressive uses of it.
It also arrives in a state where the legislature declined, for the third session running, to enact a framework governing how associations amend documents, hold elections, or resolve disputes with members. The two facts belong together: Missouri has given owners a strong procedural shield against being sued for criticising their board, and has given boards no statutory process for resolving the underlying disagreement.
What to watch next
How Missouri courts read “a matter of public concern” in a private-community setting. The phrase is doing all the work in category (3), and an association's internal affairs sit at an awkward distance from the public-concern cases the doctrine grew out of. The first appellate decision applying section 537.529 to an association dispute will be worth reading closely. None exists yet.
Related Missouri HOA Topics
Stay on top of Missouri HOA law
Every week: new Missouri legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.