SB 835: Modifies provisions relating to court procedures

CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SBs 835 & 1111 - This act modifies provisions relating to court procedures. INSURER'S LEGAL TITLE TO CLAIM PAID AND ASSIGNMENT OF POST-LOSS INSURANCE BENEFIT (SECTION 379.135) Upon payment by an insurer of all or any part of a claimant's property damage claim, legal title to the portion of the claim paid shall vest in the insurer to the extent of such payment. No assignment or other action by the claimant shall be required for the insurer to enforce its legal title. The claimant shall retain legal title only to that portion of the property damage claim not paid by the insurer. This act prohibits assignment of post-loss benefits under any policy of insurance covering property, including, but not limited to, any right of action against the insurer or any proceeds acquired from the insurer. A person shall not solicit or accept an assignment, in whole or in part, of any post-loss insurance benefit for property damage under a contract of insurance. Any agreement to assign post-loss benefits is null and void. The provisions of this act shall not apply to an assignment, transfer, pledge, or conveyance granted to a financial institution, mortgagee, lienholder, or a subsequent purchaser of the property. A violation of this act shall be considered a level two insurance violation. This provision is substantially similar to a provision in SS/HB 3205 (2026) and in HCS/HB 3328 (2026), and is similar to a provision in SCS/SB 1543 (2026) and in the truly agreed to and finally passed SS/HB 2636 (2026). STATEWIDE COURT AUTOMATION (SECTION 476.055) This act modifies provisions of law related to the Statewide Court Automation Committee ("Committee"). Specifically, this act provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, the Executive Director of the Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, and the Director of the Missouri State Public Defender System shall now serve as ex-officio members. For the House and Senate members on the Committee, one shall be a member of the majority party and one shall be a member of the minority party. Furthermore, the appointed members of the Committee shall serve for terms of two years or until their successors are appointed. Members of the Committee may also be reimbursed from the Statewide Court Automation Fund for actual expenses related to the duties of the Committee. Furthermore, this act provides that the Committee shall maintain, rather than implement, a statewide court automation system. This act also describes "confidential judicial record" for purposes of the offenses related to releasing information from a confidential judicial record as those provided by Missouri Supreme Court Rules. Currently, the Committee is required to file a report on the progress of the statewide court automation system with the chairs of certain House and Senate Committees on the February 1st, May 1st, August 1st, and November 1st of each year. Instead, this act provides that the report shall be filed electronically on January 15th of each year. Lastly, this act removes the expiration of the Committee upon completion of its duties. These provisions are identical to provisions in HCS/SB 945 (2026), in HCS/SB 1067 (2026), and in HCS/HB 3289 (2026). TREATMENT COURTS (SECTION 478.003) This act provides that in each treatment court division without a treatment court administrator or a treatment court commissioner, the court shall employ a treatment court administrator, subject to appropriations or other funds available. If other funds available are used, the source shall reimburse the state for the costs of the salary and benefits of the administrator. This provision is identical to a provision in HCS/SB 945 (2026), in HCS/SB 1067 (2026), and in HCS/HB 3289 (2026) and is similar to HB 3468 (2026). 25TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (MARIES, PHELPS, PULASKI & TEXAS) - CIRCUIT JUDGES (SECTION 478.700) This act codifies three circuit judges, including the circuit judge approved in the FY2026 appropriation and appointed by the Governor in 2026, in the 25th Judicial Circuit, consisting of the counties of Maries, Phelps, Pulaski & Texas. The circuit judge appointed in 2026 shall serve until January 1, 2029, and then the position shall be filled by an election of a four year term in 2028 and then a full six year term in 2032 and thereafter. This provision is identical to a provision in HCS/SB 945 (2026), in HCS/SB 1067 (2026), in HCS/HBs 2968, 2427 & 3086 (2026), and HB 3229 (2026). ST. LOUIS CITY CIVIL CASE FILING FEE (SECTION 488.426) Currently, any circuit court may collect a civil case filing surcharge of an amount not to exceed $15 for the maintenance of a law library, the county's or circuit's family services and justice fund, or courtroom renovation and technology enhancement. If the circuit court reimburses the state for salaries of family court commissioners or is the circuit court in Jackson County, the surcharge may be up to $20. This act provides that the circuit court in the City of St. Louis may charge a filing surcharge up to $20. This provision is identical to a provision in HCS/SB 945 (2026), in the perfected SS#2/SCS/SB 1023 (2026), in HCS/SB 1067 (2026), in SCS/SB 1468 (2026), in SCS/HB 3000 (2026), SB 18 (2025), in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), in SB 352 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), SB 800 (2025), in HB 1512 (2024), and in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), and is substantially similar to a provision in SCS/SB 897 (2024), SB 1023 (2024), CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), SB 252 (2023), HB 787 (2023), in HCS/HB 986 (2023), in the perfected HCS/HBs 994, 52 & 984 (2023), SB 1209 (2022), HB 1963 (2022), HB 143 (2021), HB 1554 (2020), HB 1224 (2019), in the perfected HCS/HB 1083 (2019), HB 1891 (2018), SB 288 (2017), HB 391 (2017), and SB 812 (2016). ATTACHMENT, EXECUTION, AND GARNISHMENTS (SECTIONS 513.380 TO 525.235) This act modifies provisions relating to attachment, execution, and garnishments. Under current law, whenever an execution against the property of any judgment debtor shall be returned unsatisfied, within five years of the return, the judgment creditor may be entitled to an order by the court rendering such judgment, requiring the judgment debtor to undergo an examination on the ability and means to satisfy the judgment, and in the case of neglect or refusal, issuing a writ of attachment and punishing the judgment debtor for contempt. This act instead provides a judgment creditor shall, upon motion made at any time before the judgment is satisfied of record and presumed paid, be entitled to such orders. Additionally, under current law, a judgment debtor may be granted immunity from prosecution by any prosecuting or circuit attorney for statements made at a judgment debtor's examination. This act instead provides that a judgment debtor shall enjoy full use and derivative immunity and that no testimony in an examination may be used against a witness, except in cases of perjury or for giving false statements. This act changes the maximum value, adjusted annually for inflation, of certain items that are exempt from attachment and execution, including household items, wedding rings and other jewelry, motor vehicles, and mobile homes. This act also modifies the homestead exemption from $15,000 to the aggregate value of $40,000. This act provides that the maximum value for the property that is exempted from attachment and execution and the amount of a homestead exemption shall be adjusted by the Revisor of Statutes every three years beginning April 1, 2029. This act outlines orders of garnishment issued for the purpose of attaching to account funds held by a financial institution, as such term is defined in the act. Such orders shall attach on the date of service, provided that the effective date of service is a banking day and made prior to the business cutoff time, in which case it shall attach the next business day. If an account receives electronic deposits for exempted funds, the attachment date shall be the date and banking day that the financial institution applies for the look-back analysis. Additionally, where there are two or more accounts, the amount may be withheld from any of the accounts belonging to the judgment debtor and attachment dates between the accounts may be different depending on the look-back analysis. If the account is held in joint tenancy with an individual not subject to the order of garnishment, the entire amount shall be withheld and the garnishee shall provide a copy of the order of garnishment to each account holder within two business days. Within 30 days of the date of the attachment of the garnishment, each account holder may file an objection or request of exemption of all or a portion of the account with the issuing court and serve their objection or request on the garnishor and the garnishee. If such objection or request is not resolved within 30 days of the timely filing of the objection or request of exemption, the garnishee may pay the garnished funds to the circuit court to be held for pending resolution. The return date for orders of garnishment shall not be less than 30 days from the effective date of service. This act also provides certain information to be included in orders of garnishment for funds held by financial institutions. No party shall seek a garnishment of account funds held by a financial institution unless there is a good-faith belief that the party to be served with the garnishment has, or will have, account assets of the judgment debtor. No more than one garnishment for the same claim and against the same judgment debtor shall be issued within any 30-day period, unless exempted by court order as detailed in the act. Furthermore, a financial institution does not have a duty to investigate or assert the defenses of a judgment debtor. A financial institution served with an order of garnishment and interrogatories shall answer within 20 days and shall release funds to the judgment debtor 60 days after an answer is submitted or sooner if required under an order to pay or paid into the court. A financial institution is not required to respond to interrogatories not related to account funds. This act does not apply to wage garnishments or garnishments of property other than account funds. Garnishees are also not required to search for, hold, or return wages or other property. The provisions relating to orders of garnishment of account funds held by financial institutions shall be implemented and administered in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court of Missouri. A garnishee acting in good faith compliance with a facially valid order of garnishment shall not be liable to any debtor, creditor, or other person for withholding, restraining, or releasing funds in reasonable reliance upon the terms of the writ or order. A garnishee shall not be required to adjudicate competing claims to property or funds, determine the legal validity of the judgment, or investigate facts outside the information contained in the writ or the garnishee's business records. A garnishee shall be liable for damages arising from a garnishment only if the garnishee fails to follow the clear and express terms of the writ or order, such failure constitutes gross negligence or willful misconduct, and actual damages are proven. A garnishee shall not be liable if correction is made within five business days after receiving written notice identifying the alleged error and the garnishee promptly releases any improperly restrained funds. However, temporarily restraining funds pending review of a claimed exemption shall not create liability if the garnishee, garnishor, and judgment debtor or other persons act as required by law. The provisions of this act relating to orders of garnishment for funds held by financial institutions shall be effective on January 1, 2028, while the provisions of this act relating to the attachment and execution are effective January 1, 2027. These provisions are identical to the truly agreed to and finally passed SS/HCS/HB 1870 (2026) and are similar to HB 275 (2025) and HB 1657 (2024). UNIFORM PUBLIC EXPRESSION PROTECTION ACT (SECTION 537.529 AND THE REPEAL OF SECTION 537.528) This act establishes the "Uniform Public Expression Protection Act". Currently, any action against a person for conduct or speech undertaken or made in connection with a public hearing or meeting in a quasi-judicial proceeding before a tribunal or decision-making body of the state or a political subdivision thereof is subject to a special motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or motion for summary judgment and any such motion shall be considered by the court on a priority or expedited basis. This act repeals this provision and creates procedures for dismissal of causes of action asserted in a civil 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. However, this act shall not apply to a cause of action asserted: (1) Against a governmental unit, as described in the act, or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity; (2) By a governmental unit or an employee or agent of a governmental unit acting in an official capacity to enforce a law to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety; or (3) 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. No later than 60 days after a party is served with a complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, third-party claim, or other pleading that asserts a cause of action covered by this act, or at a later time upon a showing of good cause, a party may file a special motion to dismiss. The court shall hear and rule on such motion no later than 60 days after the filing of the motion, unless the court orders a later hearing to allow for limited discovery or upon good cause. However, this act provides that the court shall hear and rule on the motion for dismissal no later than 60 days after the order allowing for discovery. This act provides that all other proceedings between the moving party and the responding party in the action, including discovery and any pending hearings or motions, shall be stayed upon the filing of the special motion to dismiss. Additionally, this act provides that the court may stay, upon motion by the moving party, a hearing or motion involving another party or discovery by another party if a ruling on such hearing or motion or discovery relates to a legal or factual issue. Any stay pursuant to this act shall remain in effect until the entry of an order ruling on the special motion to dismiss and the expiration of the time to appeal the order. A moving party may appeal an order denying the special motion to dismiss in whole or in part within 21 days of such order. If a party appeals an order ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that all proceedings between all parties shall be stayed until the conclusion of the appeal. The court may allow discovery if a party shows that specific information is necessary to establish whether a party has satisfied or failed to satisfy the requirements of this act and such information is not reasonably available without discovery. Additionally, a motion for costs and expenses, voluntary dismissal, or a motion to sever shall not be stayed. During a stay, the court upon good cause may hear and rule on any motions unrelated to the special motion to dismiss and any motions seeking a special or preliminary injunction to protect against an imminent threat to public health or safety. In ruling on a special motion to dismiss, this act provides that the court shall consider the parties' pleadings, the motion, any replies and responses to the motion, and any evidence that could be considered in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. The court shall dismiss the cause of action with prejudice if: (1) The moving party has established that the cause of action is covered by this act; (2) The responding party has failed to establish that this act does not apply to the cause of action; and (3) Either the responding party failed to establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of the cause of action, or the moving party has established that the responding party failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted or that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss pursuant to this act shall not affect the moving party's right to obtain a ruling on the motion and seek costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and reasonable litigation expenses. Additionally, if the moving party prevails on the motion, this act provides that such costs, fees, and expenses shall be awarded to the moving party. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice of a cause of action that is subject to a special motion to dismiss establishes that the moving party prevailed on the motion. The responding party shall be entitled to such costs, fees, and expenses if the responding party prevails on the motion and the court finds that the motion was frivolous or filed solely with the intent to delay the proceeding. Finally, this act applies to causes of action filed or asserted on or after August 28, 2026. These provisions are identical to the truly agreed to and finally passed SB 1067 (2026), provisions in SCS/SB 1468 (2026), SB 503 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 615 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 1259 (2025), and SB 1293 (2024) and are substantially similar to HB 2666 (2026), provisions in HCS/HB 83 (2025), in SCS/HCS/HB 176 (2025), in SB 352 (2025), HB 1092 (2025), in SCS/SB 897 (2024), HB 1785 (2024), in SCS/HCS/HB 2064 & HCS#2/HB 1886 (2024), in CCS/HCS/SS/SCS/SB 72 (2023), SB 432 (2023), HB 750 (2023), SB 1219 (2022), in HCS/SS#2/SCS/SB 968 (2022), HB 2624 (2022), and HB 1151 (2021). KATIE O'BRIEN