June 2026

The rules governing how landlords screen rental applicants have moved in landlords’ favor on multiple fronts over the past year, but the picture is more nuanced than it may appear at first glance. On November 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a Secretary’s letter that rescinded three of its most influential criminal-screening guidance documents, returning broad discretion to owners and operators of federally assisted housing. Closer to home, Kansas City Ordinance 231019, the local rule that once threatened to reshape screening practice across the Kansas City, Missouri market, has been largely dismantled, although the picture is not as clean as some commentators suggest.

For owners and operators with mixed portfolios, the practical compliance question has changed meaningfully. Here is where things stand and what we recommend.

What HUD Just Did

HUD’s November 25, 2025 letter, signed by Secretary Scott Turner, rescinded three guidance documents that had shaped owner and Public Housing Authority (PHA) practice for the better part of a decade:

• Notice PIH 2015-19 – which had instructed owners not to rely on arrest records alone to deny admission, terminate assistance, or evict tenants.
• 2016 Office of General Counsel Guidance – which had cautioned that criminal-history policies producing disparate impact could violate the Fair Housing Act and discouraged blanket bans.
• 2022 Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Memo – which had reiterated those limits and supplied investigative procedures for evaluating criminal-screening policies.

HUD’s stated rationale is that the rescinded documents created confusion and a chilling effect on lawful screening, and that owners and PHAs should fully exercise the screening, monitoring, and enforcement tools available under 24 CFR 960.204, 24 CFR 982.553, and related authorities. The letter emphasizes mandatory denial categories, broad permissive screening authority, and the obligation to maintain “decent, safe, and affordable” housing.

What HUD Did Not Change

It is just as important to understand what the rescission does not do. The Fair Housing Act itself is unchanged. The disparate-impact framework articulated in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project remains binding law. Blanket bans, inconsistent application of screening criteria, and policies that produce unjustified discriminatory effects continue to expose owners to liability, with or without HUD’s prior guidance to point to.

In practical terms: HUD has removed what many in the industry treated as “safe harbor” guidance. It has not removed the underlying legal risk. Documentation, consistency, and individualized assessment remain essential.

Kansas City Ordinance 231019: What Survived, What Did Not

Kansas City passed Ordinance 231019 in January 2024, with most provisions taking effect in August 2024. As originally enacted, the ordinance attempted to do four things at once:

• Classify source of income (including Section 8 vouchers and other government housing assistance) as a protected category, effectively requiring landlords to accept vouchers.
• Prohibit denial of tenancy based solely on prior criminal history.
• Prohibit denial based on evictions older than one year.
• Prohibit denial based solely on adverse credit history.

Two developments in 2025 dramatically changed the legal status of the ordinance.

• The federal injunction. In Jones & Vogel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, Case No. 4:24-cv-00649-RK, Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark granted a preliminary injunction on February 11, 2025, halting enforcement of the source-of-income provisions. The court found that compelling landlords to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program effectively forced them to waive Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to government inspections and program conditions as the price of renting their own property. Our firm has covered the litigation in detail on www.mokslaw.com.
• House Bill 595. On May 7, 2025, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill 595, which Governor Mike Kehoe signed into law. HB 595 took effect August 28, 2025 and prohibits any Missouri county or city from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing an ordinance that, among other things, (1) discriminates against landlords based on a tenant’s lawful and verifiable source of income (with a limited exception for veterans’ benefits), and (2) “restricts a landlord’s ability to use or consider income-qualifying methods, credit scores, credit reports, eviction or property damage history, or criminal history, according to such landlord’s own customarily applied criteria.”

Where That Leaves Kansas City Landlords Today

The source-of-income piece of Ordinance 231019 is no longer in force. Between the federal injunction and the statewide preemption in HB 595, Kansas City landlords are not required to accept Section 8 vouchers or other government housing assistance as a condition of renting their property.

The status of the ordinance’s criminal-history, credit, and eviction-history restrictions is closer to settled than not, but reasonable lawyers can read the text differently. HB 595 expressly preempts local ordinances that “restrict a landlord’s ability to use or consider … credit scores, credit reports, eviction or property damage history, or criminal history” under the landlord’s customary criteria. Read straightforwardly, that language sweeps in the very provisions of Ordinance 231019 that limited criminal-history, credit, and eviction-based denials. The City of Kansas City has not formally repealed those portions of the ordinance, however, and they technically remain on the books.

In our view, the better reading of HB 595 is that those portions are preempted and unenforceable as a matter of state law. But because the City has not removed the language, and because the contours of HB 595’s preemption have not been tested across every conceivable application, prudent landlords and operators should not treat the criminal-history and eviction-history provisions of Ordinance 231019 as dead letter until that issue is fully resolved, particularly given the documentation, recordkeeping, and uniform-application principles that the ordinance imposed. Most of those practices are sound regardless of the legal status of the ordinance.

Where the Federal Reset and the Local Landscape Meet

For owners of federally assisted housing within Kansas City, the HUD letter and the post-HB 595 landscape work in the same direction: greater discretion to screen, monitor, and enforce. That convergence is real, but it does not eliminate risk. Three points to keep in view:

• Permissive does not mean automatic. HUD authorizes discretionary screening, but the Fair Housing Act still requires that this discretion be exercised through documented, individualized review rather than categorical denials. Disparate-impact theory survived the rescission of HUD’s guidance.
• Mandatory denials still control. Federal law continues to require denial in specific categories (lifetime sex offender registration and certain drug-related convictions for federally assisted housing). Those mandatory categories were never optional.
• Documentation is the strongest defense that remains. With HUD’s prior safe-harbor guidance withdrawn and Ordinance 231019 partially preempted but still on the books, the file you build on every screening decision is your best protection against a Fair Housing complaint or a local enforcement attempt.

A Note for Kansas Landlords

Properties on the Kansas side of the state line were never subject to Ordinance 231019, and Kansas has not enacted a comparable statewide screening statute. Kansas landlords remain subject to the federal Fair Housing Act, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and any applicable local ordinances. The disparate-impact analysis that limited blanket criminal bans before HUD’s rescission still applies to Kansas owners as a matter of federal law, the rescission simply removed an administrative interpretation, not the underlying statute.

Action Steps for Landlords and Operators

Whether you operate a single duplex or a multi-property portfolio, this is a good moment to review your screening program:

• Update your Tenant Selection Plan or screening policy. Confirm it reflects current HUD authority for assisted properties, the post-HB 595 landscape in Missouri, and any applicable local requirements.
• Remove rescinded guidance and obsolete ordinance references. Anything that cited the 2015, 2016, or 2022 HUD documents, or that built workflows around Ordinance 231019’s source-of-income provisions, should be revised.
• Audit your advertising and application process. Even with the source-of-income mandate gone, Fair Housing concerns about inconsistent application of screening criteria, pre-application pre-screening, and disparate-impact still apply.
• Build (or maintain) an individualized-assessment workflow. For any denial involving credit, criminal history, or eviction history, your file should reflect a holistic, case-by-case evaluation considering recency, severity, and any mitigating circumstances offered by the applicant.
• Lock down recordkeeping. Even setting aside Ordinance 231019’s three-year retention requirement, Fair Housing defense and FCRA compliance both depend on a paper trail. Build a system that survives staff turnover and audits.
• Train onsite staff. Most Fair Housing exposure originates with frontline conversations, not written policies. Refresh training to reflect both the federal shift and the post-HB 595 state-law landscape.
• Coordinate with counsel before changing termination practices. HUD’s emphasis on enforcement makes lease enforcement actions more attractive, but unlawful detainer practice in Missouri and Kansas still has procedural traps that can derail an otherwise good case.

How We Can Help

Our firm represents landlords, property managers, and real estate investors across Missouri and Kansas. We have followed Ordinance 231019 since its introduction, including the

Jones & Vogel litigation and the passage of HB 595, and we routinely advise on Tenant Selection Plan review, Fair Housing risk assessment, lease drafting, and unlawful detainer litigation. If the November HUD letter or the post-HB 595 environment has you wondering whether your screening program still holds up, we welcome the conversation.

Contact us today for a consultation:

Missouri Office: 1903 Wyandotte St., Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64108 | (816) 931-2207

Kansas Office: 1901 W. 47th Place, Suite 300, Westwood, KS 66205 | (913) 262-2207

Email: julie@mokslaw.com | Web: www.mokslaw.com

May 2026

On March 19, 2026, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed one of the most consequential enforcement actions against a residential real estate investor in recent memory. The defendant, House Max, Inc., a Wyandotte County-based “We Buy Houses” operation, along with its CEO Jason Jones and purchasing manager Herbert Brown, Jr., is accused of widespread consumer fraud and, critically, of operating without the real estate licenses the State says were required for what the company was doing.

For every wholesaler, fix-and-flip investor, and “cash for keys” operator in Kansas, this case is worth paying close attention to. Not because it changes the law [it doesn’t] but because it signals that the Attorney General’s Office now intends to use the law that has been on the books for decades.

What the State Alleges

Per the Attorney General’s March 20, 2026 press release and the petition filed in district court, the State alleges that the HouseMax defendants:

• Sent thousands of unsolicited mailings to homeowners in Wyandotte, Johnson, Leavenworth, and Miami Counties, including personalized “checks” with specific cash offers for the recipient’s home.
• After the homeowner responded, drastically reduced the purchase price by citing alleged repair needs, while concealing significant commissions, hidden fees, and undisclosed cancellation penalties.
• Filed liens against the homeowners’ properties, allegedly without a legitimate legal interest, which clouded title and pressured homeowners to close even after changing their minds.
• Charged effective commissions averaging more than three times the rate of traditional licensed real estate transactions.
• Operated without the licenses required by the Kansas Real Estate Brokers’ and Salespersons’ License Act.

HouseMax has publicly denied wrongdoing through counsel, and the case is at the pleading stage. The allegations are unproven. But for purposes of understanding the legal risk landscape, the State’s theory is what matters.

The Two Statutes Driving the Case

• The Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. 50-623 et seq. The KCPA prohibits deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices by “suppliers” in connection with consumer transactions. Acquiring an owner-occupied home from a homeowner can qualify as a consumer transaction. The KCPA carries civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, restitution, attorney fees, and the prospect of being permanently enjoined from doing business in the state. The Attorney General has used the KCPA aggressively over the past year against contractors, landscapers, and door-to-door sales operations, and the HouseMax case applies that same playbook to a real estate investment company.
• The Real Estate Brokers’ and Salespersons’ License Act, K.S.A. 58-3034 et seq. This is the part of the case that wholesalers need to study carefully. Kansas law requires a real estate license for a person who, for compensation or the expectation of compensation, performs the acts of a “broker”, which include negotiating the sale or purchase of real estate on behalf of another, or holding oneself out as engaged in that business. Acting as an unlicensed broker is not just a regulatory infraction; it can expose the actor to civil penalties, injunctive relief, and, in some circumstances, criminal prosecution.

Why Wholesalers in Particular Should Pay Attention

Wholesaling in Kansas has long occupied a workable but narrow legal lane. Most practitioners operate on a simple premise: a wholesaler is not selling real estate; the wholesaler signs a purchase contract with the seller, then assigns the wholesaler’s equitable interest in that contract to an end buyer for a fee. Selling your own contract right is not, on the conventional view, brokering real estate for someone else.

That conventional view depends on the wholesaler actually being a contract principal (a real, willing-and-able buyer at the contract price) and on full transparency with the seller about what the wholesaler is doing. When those conditions break down, the legal characterization can shift fast. The State’s theory in HouseMax is essentially that the defendants were not real buyers acting in their own right; they were operating as de facto brokers, marketing properties they had no intention of personally owning and extracting compensation that functioned as a commission.

If that characterization holds, every wholesaler in Kansas needs to ask whether the practices that the State is targeting in HouseMax describe their own business model.

Eight Practices the HouseMax Case Puts in the Crosshairs

Reviewing the State’s allegations, the following practices stand out as red flags for any Kansas wholesaler:

• Fake or “personalized” check mailers. Mailers that mimic a negotiable instrument and create the impression of a firm cash offer are easy to allege as deceptive, particularly when the eventual offer is materially lower.
• Bait-and-switch pricing. A high initial offer followed by post-inspection reductions justified by undocumented “needed repairs” is one of the State’s central themes.
• Hidden fees, commissions, and assignment spreads. If the seller does not know what the wholesaler is actually being paid, directly or through an assignment to an end buyer, the State will call it concealment.
• Undisclosed or punitive cancellation terms. Cancellation penalties buried in a contract presented to a homeowner in distress are precisely the kind of “unconscionable practice” the KCPA targets.
• Recording memoranda or liens against the seller’s property. Filing any instrument that clouds title (a memorandum of contract, an affidavit of equitable interest, a mechanic’s lien) to pressure a seller into closing is one of the highest-risk practices in this case. Kansas has separate statutes addressing slander of title and wrongful filing.
• Marketing the property (not the contract) before closing. Listing the underlying property to end buyers, especially in MLS-like channels or to the public, looks like brokering. Marketing your equitable interest in the contract to a defined pool of investor buyers is the cleaner posture.
• No genuine intent to close yourself. If you have no financial ability or intent to close in your own name if you cannot find an assignee, the “I’m the buyer” defense becomes hard to sustain.
• Targeting vulnerable sellers. Seniors, heirs in probate, owners facing foreclosure or tax sale, and other distressed sellers receive heightened protection under both the KCPA and case law on unconscionable practices.

What Kansas Wholesalers Should Do Right Now

Whether you do two deals a year or two hundred, this case warrants a deliberate review of your practice. We recommend at minimum:

• Audit your marketing. Pull your last 12 months of mailers, postcards, websites, and lead-generation funnels. Anything that resembles a check, anything that promises “fee-free” or “commission-free” sales, and anything that implies a firm offer without an inspection contingency deserves scrutiny.
• Rebuild your contract package around full disclosure. Your purchase agreement should clearly identify the assignment right, the seller’s right to cancel within a specified period, all fees the wholesaler may receive, and the realistic possibility that the property may be resold to an end buyer at a higher price. Transparency is your strongest defense against an “unconscionable practice” claim.
• Stop recording instruments unless your interest is real and unambiguous. If you must file a memorandum of contract to protect your position, ensure the contract is current, the seller has been told you intend to file, and the document is released promptly if the deal does not close.
• Reconsider your relationship with vulnerable sellers. If your lead funnel disproportionately produces elderly, distressed, or pre-foreclosure sellers, build in safeguards: written acknowledgments of the seller’s right to consult counsel, mandatory cooling-off periods, recorded conversations, and a no-pressure protocol for your acquisition team.
• Decide whether the broker line still works for you. Some operators will conclude that obtaining a Kansas real estate license, or partnering with a licensed broker for marketing activities, is the cleanest path forward. That is a strategic decision worth making proactively rather than after a regulator comes knocking.
• Have a litigation-readiness file. If you receive a civil investigative demand or subpoena from the Attorney General’s Office, the first 48 hours matter. Document retention, internal communications, and any contact with the requesting office should go through counsel from the start.

Wholesaling Is Still Legal in Kansas

Nothing in the HouseMax case suggests that legitimate, transparent wholesaling is unlawful in Kansas. The State has not asked the court to enjoin assignment contracts generally, has not asserted that buying houses below market is unlawful, and has not challenged the basic premise that a contract right is assignable property. The case is about how a particular set of defendants is alleged to have operated, not about wholesaling as a business model.

That said, the gravity of the State’s allegations, unlicensed brokering, false liens, predatory targeting of vulnerable sellers, makes clear that the Attorney General now views the residential investment space as a consumer-protection priority. Operators who run clean, transparent, well-papered businesses have little to fear. Operators who do not should treat HouseMax as a one-time-only warning.

How We Can Help

Our firm represents real estate investors, wholesalers, fix-and-flip operators, and landlords across Kansas and Missouri. We routinely advise on wholesaling compliance, contract structure, licensing analysis, marketing and disclosure review, and defense against KCPA and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act enforcement. If the HouseMax filing has you asking whether your own practice would survive a similar review, we welcome the conversation, confidentially and at your initiative, before someone else decides to ask the same question.

Contact us today for a consultation:

Missouri Office: 1903 Wyandotte St., Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64108 | (816) 931-2207

Kansas Office: 1901 W. 47th Place, Suite 300, Westwood, KS 66205 | (913) 262-2207

Email: julie@mokslaw.com | Web: www.mokslaw.com

April 2026

What Every Missouri Seller and Buyer Needs to Know About the Contract for Deed Act (RSMo §§ 442.700–442.746)

Seller-financed real estate transactions, often called “contracts for deed,” “land contracts,” or “installment sale agreements”, are becoming increasingly common in the Kansas City metro market and across Missouri. Rising interest rates, tightening credit standards, and an inventory of properties that don’t qualify for conventional financing have all contributed to growing interest in this form of creative financing.

But what many buyers and sellers don’t realize is that Missouri has a comprehensive statutory framework governing these transactions: the Missouri Contract for Deed Act, RSMo §§ 442.700–442.746. Whether you are a buyer hoping to get into a home without traditional bank financing, a seller looking to create a steady income stream from a property you own free and clear, or an investor structuring a creative deal, understanding this law is essential, and ignoring it can be costly.

This article walks through the key provisions of the Act, the rights and obligations it creates for both parties, and what you need to know before signing on the dotted line.

What Is a Contract for Deed?

A contract for deed in Missouri is a form of seller financing in which the seller keeps legal title to the property while the buyer takes possession and acquires equitable ownership. The buyer lives in and uses the home while making installment payments to the seller. The deed does not transfer until the buyer has fulfilled all of the contract’s obligations, typically by making all payments in full.

In plain terms: the seller acts as the bank. The buyer moves in, makes monthly payments, and eventually receives the deed, but until that final payment is made, the seller remains the legal owner of record.

This structure can be attractive on both sides of the transaction. Buyers who cannot qualify for conventional financing can still achieve homeownership. Sellers can generate monthly income, potentially at a favorable interest rate, while maintaining certain protections if the buyer defaults.

But because the buyer’s position is more vulnerable than in a traditional mortgage transaction — they have equitable interest but not legal title — Missouri law provides specific protections that cannot be waived or contracted around.

Does the Act Apply to Your Transaction?

The Act applies broadly to executory contracts for the conveyance of real property intended to be used as the purchaser’s residence.

Importantly, the Act also applies to a lease-option arrangement — an option to purchase real property that includes or is executed concurrently with a residential lease agreement is also considered an executory contract under the Act. This catches many “rent-to-own” arrangements that parties may not realize are subject to the law’s requirements.

There are two notable exceptions:

• The Act does not apply to an executory contract that provides for delivery of a deed within 180 days of final execution. Short-term installment arrangements with quick deed delivery fall outside its scope.
• Certain lease-option arrangements with terms of three years or less are subject only to limited provisions of the Act rather than its full requirements.

If your transaction falls within the Act’s scope and you haven’t complied with its requirements, you may be exposed to significant liability, including the buyer’s right to cancel and rescind the contract.

Key Obligations Under the Act

1. Pre-Contract Disclosures — Seller’s Duty Before Signing

Before a purchaser signs an executory contract, the seller has mandatory disclosure obligations. The seller must provide the purchaser with a legible copy of any document that describes an encumbrance or other claim, including a restrictive covenant, existing mortgage or easement, that affects title to the real property, along with a written disclosure of other required information.

This means sellers cannot simply hand a buyer a contract and expect them to sign. The buyer must be given a full picture of the title condition of the property before committing. Failure to make these disclosures gives the buyer powerful remedies, including the right to rescind.

2. Recording the Contract — Within 30 Days of Execution

One of the most commonly overlooked requirements is the mandatory recording obligation. Under § 442.728, the contract for deed must be recorded in the county where the property is located within 30 days of execution.

This protects the buyer against the risk that the seller, who still holds legal title, might encumber or transfer the property to a third party. An unrecorded contract for deed provides no protection against subsequent purchasers or lienholders who have no actual notice of the buyer’s equitable interest. Recording is not optional. It is a legal requirement.

Practice tip for sellers: Build the recording obligation into your closing checklist and budget the recording fee into the transaction costs. Failure to record can expose the seller to liability and can undermine the entire transaction structure.

3. Annual Statement — Seller’s Ongoing Obligation

Under § 442.730, the seller must provide the purchaser with an annual statement in January of each year for the entire term of the executory contract. If the seller mails the statement, it must be postmarked no later than January 31st.

The annual statement must show the current status of payments, the remaining principal balance, the amounts applied to principal and interest, and the applicable interest rate. This is not discretionary, it is a mandatory annual obligation for the life of the contract.

Sellers who fail to provide annual statements may find that their ability to enforce the contract is compromised. Buyers who aren’t receiving annual statements should demand them, and if they don’t arrive, consult an attorney.

4. The Purchaser’s Conversion Right — § 442.738

One of the most significant, and most frequently overlooked, protections in the Act is the purchaser’s right to convert their equitable interest into recorded legal title before the contract is fully paid.

Under § 442.738, once a purchaser has paid at least 15% of the purchase price, they have the right to convert the contract for deed into a traditional deed of trust arrangement. This effectively allows the buyer to obtain legal title to the property, secured by a deed of trust back to the seller for the remaining balance, similar to the structure of a conventional mortgage.

This conversion right is statutory and cannot be waived. Any provision of an executory contract that purports to waive a right or exempt a party from a liability or duty under the Act is void.

The practical implication is significant: sellers who structure contract for deed transactions expecting to retain legal title for the full term of the contract may be surprised to discover that the buyer can force a conversion to a deed of trust once 15% has been paid. Sellers must be prepared for this possibility and structure their transactions accordingly.

5. The 60-Day Cure Period — § 442.742

Perhaps the most practically important provision of the Act, and the one most frequently violated in homemade contract for deed agreements, is the mandatory cure period for purchaser defaults.

Under § 442.742, if a purchaser defaults after having paid 30% or more of the purchase price or the equivalent of 48 monthly payments, the seller may not simply terminate the contract. Before exercising any power of sale or forfeiture remedy, the seller must first provide the purchaser with written notice of the default and allow at least 60 days after the date of notice to cure the default.

This provision has enormous practical significance:

• Many homemade contracts provide far shorter cure periods — 14 days, 10 days, or even less. Once the 30% / 48-payment threshold is reached, those shorter periods are unenforceable as a matter of law. The 60-day minimum controls regardless of what the contract says.
• The threshold is reached faster than many sellers realize. On a 30-year contract, 48 monthly payments is just four years in. On a 15-year contract, 30% of the purchase price may be paid in the first few years depending on the amortization schedule.
• Notice requirements are specific. Under § 442.704, default notices must be in writing, delivered by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and must be printed in 14-point bold-faced type or 14-point uppercase typewritten letters. The notice must include a specific statutory statement on a separate page informing the buyer that they are not complying with the contract terms.

A seller who attempts to terminate a contract for deed on inadequate notice, or without allowing the full statutory cure period, faces the risk that the termination is invalid, that the buyer can remain in possession, and that the seller may owe damages.

6. Purchaser’s Right to Cancel and Rescind — § 442.726

The Act gives buyers a powerful remedy if sellers fail to comply with the Act’s requirements. In addition to other rights or remedies provided by law, the purchaser may cancel and rescind an executory contract under certain conditions, including the seller’s failure to make required disclosures, failure to record, or other violations of the Act.

The right to rescind is a significant sword for buyers and a serious risk for sellers who cut corners. A buyer who successfully rescinds the contract is generally entitled to the return of payments made, which can represent years of accumulated equity.

Common Mistakes — And How to Avoid Them

In our practice, we frequently encounter contracts for deed transactions that were structured without counsel — often using online templates or agreements copied from other states — that contain serious deficiencies under Missouri law. The most common mistakes are:

Failing to record. Sellers who don’t record the contract within 30 days expose the buyer to the risk of losing their equitable interest to a subsequent purchaser or lienholder and may themselves face liability for the failure.

Inadequate cure periods. The 14-day or 30-day cure periods that appear in most standard lease and rental agreements are not compliant with Missouri’s Contract for Deed Act once the payment threshold is reached.

No annual statement process. Most homemade contracts say nothing about annual statements, yet the statute requires them every January for the life of the deal.

Ignoring the conversion right. Sellers who don’t understand § 442.738 may find themselves forced to convert the contract into a deed of trust arrangement sooner than anticipated.

Non-compliant default notices. The specific formatting requirements for default notices — 14-point bold type, certified mail, statutory language on a separate page — are easy to overlook but legally significant.

Waiver provisions. Sellers sometimes try to include provisions waiving the buyer’s statutory rights. Those provisions are void under § 442.714 and may signal to a court that the seller was attempting to circumvent the law, which rarely helps in litigation.

What This Means for Sellers

If you are selling a home through a contract for deed in Missouri, here is what you should know:

• Use a qualified real estate attorney to draft the contract. Online templates are almost never compliant with Missouri’s Contract for Deed Act. The cost of a properly drafted agreement is far less than the cost of defending a rescission claim.
• Record the contract within 30 days. This is your legal obligation, and failing to do so can expose you to liability.
• Build annual statement delivery into your calendar. A simple annual accounting letter sent by January 31 each year keeps you compliant and demonstrates good faith.
• Design your default provisions around the 60-day cure period. Don’t use a shorter period that will become unenforceable once the threshold is reached.
• Understand the conversion right. Structure your deal knowing that the buyer may eventually force conversion to a deed of trust. Consult with your attorney about how to plan for this contingency from the outset.
• Keep meticulous records. Payment histories, correspondence, and any notices should be preserved for the life of the contract. In the event of a dispute, documentation is everything.

A Note on Lease-Option Arrangements

Missouri’s Contract for Deed Act specifically includes lease-option arrangements where the lease and option are executed together. If you are a landlord who has offered a tenant the option to purchase the property they are renting, and that arrangement was structured alongside the lease, the Act’s requirements may apply to your transaction, even if you didn’t intend it to function as a contract for deed.

This is an area of particular risk for investors who frequently use lease-option structures. If you have existing lease-option agreements that were not drafted with the Act in mind, it is worth having them reviewed by counsel.

We Can Help

At Anderson & Associates, our real estate team regularly assists buyers, sellers, and investors in structuring, reviewing, and closing contracts for deed transactions that comply fully with Missouri’s Contract for Deed Act. We draft contracts that protect our clients’ interests, navigate default and cure situations, and help parties understand their rights before problems arise.

Whether you are entering into your first seller-financed transaction or have an existing agreement you’d like reviewed for compliance, we are here to help.

Contact us today for a consultation:

Missouri Office: 1903 Wyandotte St., Suite 100, Kansas City, MO 64108 | (816) 931-2207

Kansas Office: 1901 W. 47th Place, Suite 300, Westwood, KS 66205 | (913) 262-2207

Email: julie@mokslaw.com | Web: www.mokslaw.com

March 20, 2026

ICE activity at or near your rental property is stressful and fast-moving. For Missouri and Kansas residential investors and property managers, the goal is to (1) avoid obstructing law enforcement, (2) avoid voluntarily waiving tenant/property rights, (3) protect resident privacy and fair housing compliance, and (4) keep your team safe and consistent.

This article provides practical compliance guidance for investors and property managers. It is not individualized legal advice and should not be applied without considering the specific facts of your situation.

I.  What Landlords Are Legally Required to Do (And Not Do)

Never physically interfere with officers. Do not block entry, surround officers, or encourage residents to resist.

1. Follow State Landlord-Tenant Law Regarding Entry
2. Kansas: Entry into a dwelling unit is governed by statute and generally requires 24 hours’ notice, reasonable timing, and a reasonable purpose, with emergency exceptions.
3. Missouri: There is no specific statutory 24-hour rule. Entry is governed by lease language and the common law “reasonableness” standard (reasonable notice, reasonable time, and reasonable purpose).

            Apply Policies Consistently

• Do not treat residents differently based on national origin, race accent, perceived immigration status, or any protected characteristic.

B.  What You Are Not Required to Do

            In most situations, investors and property managers are not required to:

• Consent to entry into private units or non-public areas without proper legal authority or resident consent;
• Help locate a resident;
• Confirm whether a person resides at the property;
• Provide forwarding addresses, applications, identification documents, contact information, or payment history;
• Provide master keys, access codes, or fobs; or
• Release resident files, security footage, or other records unless you are served with a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order directed to you.

A resident’s dwelling unit receives the highest level of constitutional protection under the Fourth Amendment.

C.  What You Should Do

• Maintain a written internal law enforcement interaction policy.
• Clearly distinguish between public and non-public areas of the property.
• Document all interactions with law enforcement.
• Clearly identify public vs. non-public areas at each property:
  • Public Areas (generally accessible without restriction)
    • Leasing office lobby (during business hours)
    • Public sidewalks
    • Ungated parking lots
    • Open walkways
  • Non-Public Areas (restricted access)
    • Individual dwelling units
    • Locked hallways or stairwells
    • Gated courtyards
    • Resident-only amenities
    • Maintenance rooms
    • Storage areas
    • Any controlled-access area requiring a key, fob, or code.

II.  Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants

A.    Judicial Warrant

• Is signed by a judge or magistrate (state or federal)
• Specifies the address and often the particular unit;
• Identifies the scope of search or authority.

If ICE presents a judge-signed warrant authorizing entry into a specific unit, you should not obstruct execution of that warrant. You may, however:

• Request to see the warrant;
• Confirm the address and unit match; and
• Retain a copy or photograph for your records.

B.     Administrative Immigration Warrant

An administrative warrant:

• Is issued by ICE or Department of Homeland Security;
• Is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge.

Historically, these documents authorize the arrest of a named individual but do not function as judicial search warrants authorizing entry into private residences.

For investors and property managers, the safest operational approach is:

• Do not consent to entry into private units or non-public areas without a judicial warrant or resident consent;
• Do not physically interfere if officers proceed under asserted authority;
• Contact legal counsel immediately.

C.  “At the Door” Staff Checklist

If law enforcement appears on site:

1. Verify identity. Request agency identification and badge number.
2. Ask whether they have a judicial warrant signed by a judge.
3. Review the documentation carefully.
4. Photograph or copy the warrant or paperwork.
5. If only an administrative warrant is presented, state:

“We do not consent to entry into private units or restricted areas without a judicial      warrant. You may serve any subpoena or court order on our registered office or legal counsel.”

• Contact legal counsel immediately.

III.  Resident Privacy Considerations (Missouri and Kansas)

1. Core Principles

Resident privacy and the right to quiet enjoyment are foundational legal protections.

• Kansas: Entry is statutorily limited and requires 24 hours notice except in emergencies.
• Missouri: Entry is governed by lease terms and the reasonableness standard.

            Your lease language and consistent enforcement practices are critical.

• Protecting Resident Records

Treat resident records as confidential business documents.

Do not voluntarily disclose:

• Rental applications
• Identification documents
• Social Security numbers
• Immigration documents
• Payroll records
• Contact information
• Payment ledgers
• Security footage identifying residents
• Lease violation notices without valid legal process.

If served with a subpoena:

• Confirm it was issued by a court;
• Review scope and deadline;
• Determine whether narrowing is appropriate;
• Consult counsel before producing documents;
• Determine whether resident notification is required.

• Fair Housing and Retaliation Risks

Investors and property managers should avoid:

• Threatening eviction because ICE made inquiries;
• Initiating inspections in response to immigration-related inquiries;
• Making comments about nationality, language, or immigration status;
• Selective enforcement of lease terms.
• Even casual statements by staff can create legal exposure.

IV.  Best Practices for Property Managers

A.    Adopt a Law Enforcement Interaction Policy

Your written policy should identify:

• Who may speak with law enforcement (manager-only);
• Scripted response language;
• Document retention procedures;
• When legal counsel must be contacted;
• Where legal documents should be served.

•  Maintain a Property Access Map

Keep a simple internal diagram identifying:

• Public access points;
• Controlled-access areas;
• Camera locations;
• Master key storage procedures.

C.  Master Key Policy

Never voluntarily provide master keys, fobs, or access codes without:

• A judicial warrant authorizing access; or
• Legal counsel review.
• If officers assert exigent circumstances, do not physically interfere. Simply, document and photograph the interaction and contact legal counsel.

• Distinguish Emergency Entry from Enforcement Entry

Maintenance emergencies (fire, flooding, gas leaks) are separate from law enforcement activity.

If you enter for a legitimate emergency and observe potential evidence of wrongdoing:

• Address the emergency only;
• Do not expand the scope of your entry;
• Document neutrally and follow normal incident protocols.

E.  Communications with Residents

Consider issuing a neutral compliance-focused statement:

• Management complies with valid court orders;
• Management does not voluntarily release resident records without legal process;
• Residents should seek personal legal counsel for individual concerns.

Avoid adding any personal or political commentary or advising residents on how to avoid enforcement.

V.  Risk Management Recommendations

A.  Centralize Law Enforcement Interactions

Designate a trained supervisor as the sole contact point.

Use a standardized incident log documenting:

• Date, time, and location;
• Officer names and agencies;
• Documentation presented;
• Scope of request;
• Management’s response;
• Any property damage or resident complaints.

B. Avoid These Legal Exposures

• Voluntary consent to search non-public areas;
• Unauthorized disclosure of resident records;
• Discriminatory or inconsistent enforcement practices;
• Self-help actions against residents following enforcement activity.

C. Insurance and Documentation

If enforcement activity causes property damage:

• Photograph immediately;
• Preserve video footage;
• Notify your insurance carrier as appropriate;
• Retain all documentation.

Final Thoughts

The safest approach is calm, consistent, policy-driven compliance. Cooperate with valid court orders. Do not obstruct. Do not consent unnecessarily. Protect resident privacy. Document everything and when in doubt, pause and contact counsel before acting.

If you are a Missouri or Kansas investor or property manager facing a situation involving ICE or other federal enforcement activity, our office is available to provide fast, fact-specific guidance.

Julie Anderson
Anderson & Associates
julie@mokslaw.com
816-262-2207

January 20, 2026

Every year, we see first-time real estate investors lose money not because they bought the “wrong”
property, but because they didn’t understand the legal, operational, and risk realities of owning rental
property.
At our firm, most investor problems do not start in court. They start months or years earlier with decisions
that felt harmless at the time: using a DIY lease, skipping reserves, choosing the wrong entity, or assuming
a property can always be sold “if things go bad.”
Below are ten foundational lessons we teach new investors to help them avoid the most common (and
most expensive) mistakes we see in real litigation.

1. Start With the Exit, Not the Excitement
   “Buying real estate does not make you money. Managing and exiting real estate does.”
   Every deal should be evaluated backward. Before making an offer, an investor should be able to
   answer one question clearly: how do I get out of this deal?
   Selling, refinancing, holding for cash flow, or exchanging into another property all require different
   assumptions. Exit plans break down quickly when investors underestimate legal friction—evictions,
   code violations, defective leases, or title issues follow the property, not the owner.
   The worst forced sales we see are not caused by bad properties, but by investors who ran out of time
   or cash.
2. Buy the Deal, Not the Property
   “New investors fall in love with buildings. Experienced investors buy numbers.”
   A starter deal must cash flow conservatively after accounting for taxes, insurance, maintenance,
   vacancy, and management—even if the owner plans to self-manage. Appreciation and “future rent
   increases” are not substitutes for current fundamentals.
   If a deal only works when everything goes right, it is not a beginner deal.
3. Use the Right Entity, But Keep It Simple
   Many investors either buy in their personal name with no protection or overcomplicate their
   structure with multiple LLCs they do not maintain properly.
   An LLC can help isolate liability, but it is not a shield against negligence, poor records, or commingled
   finances. If the entity is not operated like a real business, courts may treat it as if it never existed.
   Clean operations matter more than complexity. Separate accounts, proper insurance, correct entity
   names on leases and policies, and basic compliance do more to protect investors than elaborate
   structures used incorrectly.
   2
4. Understand Landlord-Tenant Law Before the First Lease
   “A lease is not just a business document. It is evidence.”
   Many online leases contain illegal clauses, conflict with state law, or create ambiguity that courts will
   not enforce. Investors often lose cases not because the facts are bad, but because the paperwork is.
   Real estate investing is a compliance-based business. Proper notices, lawful lease terms, documented
   screening criteria, and consistent enforcement matter from day one.
5. Cash Reserves Are Not Optional
   One nonpaying tenant can cost thousands of dollars once lost rent, legal fees, repairs, utilities, and
   delays are added up.
   Minimum reserves of three to six months of total expenses per property are not conservative, they are
   realistic. The greatest financial risk is not a roof or furnace. It is a tenant who stops paying and knows
   how to delay.
6. Your Team Matters More Than the Deal
   “Good deals fail when investors lack the right team.”
   A real estate attorney, CPA familiar with rentals, landlord-savvy insurance agent, and reliable
   contractor prevent problems before they become emergencies. Investors who wait until something
   goes wrong to assemble their team are already behind.
   The goal is not to eliminate risk, but to respond quickly and correctly when problems arise.
7. Avoid “Guru” Debt Structures Early
   “Creative financing can work, but early over-leveraging removes margin for error.”
   Balloon payments, adjustable rates, and short-term debt structures often depend on perfect execution
   and favorable markets. When conditions shift, small problems become forced sales.
   Early success comes from boring, resilient financing—not clever structures that only work in ideal
   conditions.
8. Document Everything Like You Expect Court
   “Courts decide cases based on evidence, not memory.”
   Clean ledgers, written communications, dated photos, proof of notices, and documented repairs win
   disputes. Informal texts, side agreements, and “we’ll figure it out later” arrangements create legal
   exposure.
   If it is not written down, it did not happen.
9. Treat It Like a Business on Day One
   Blended finances, emotional decision-making, and inconsistent enforcement are common reasons
   investors fail.
   3
   Professional landlords use written policies, clean books, standard systems, and neutral communication.
   Every message sent to a tenant should be written as if it could appear in court.
10. Start Small, Learn Fast, Scale Intentionally
    “The first deal is education, not a trophy.”
    Investors who survive long term focus on systems, reserves, and operational competence before
    scaling. Growth without infrastructure multiplies stress and mistakes.
    Survival beats speed every time.
    Most real estate litigation we handle was preventable. The investors who succeed are not the ones who
    avoid mistakes, they are the ones who structure deals conservatively, operate professionally, and
    understand the legal realities before problems arise.
    Real estate rewards preparation, not shortcuts.
    Whether you’re still underwriting your first deal or you’re already managing tenants, we can help you get
    your legal foundation in place with leases, notices, policies, and documentation, so you’re not improvising
    under pressure later. If you want to talk through your setup, we offer consultations tailored to real-world
    investor problems. Contact us at julie@mokslaw.com or by clicking on “Message Us” at
    www.mokslaw.com.

January 20, 2026

Security deposit disputes are one of the fastest ways for a routine move-out to turn into a demand letter or
lawsuit. Missouri and Kansas both allow landlords to use deposits to cover unpaid rent and tenant-caused
damage, but both states also impose strict deadlines and meaningful penalties if the process is mishandled.
This guide summarizes the rules landlords most often get wrong and provides best practices for creating
a deposit reconciliation that holds up under scrutiny.

1. How Much Can You Collect as a Security Deposit?
   Missouri (RSMo 535.300)

• Security deposit: up to two months’ rent.
• Pet deposit: permitted but treat and label it separately from the security deposit.
  Kansas (K.S.A. 58-2550)
• Unfurnished unit: up to one month’s rent.
• Furnished unit: up to 1.5 months’ rent.
• Pet deposit: additional amount up to 0.5 month’s rent when pets are permitted.

1. When Must the Deposit Be Returned?
   Missouri (RSMo 535.300)

• Within 30 days after the tenancy ends, the landlord must either return the full deposit or
  provide a written, itemized statement of deductions and return any remaining balance.
  Kansas (K.S.A. 58-2550)
• If deductions are taken for expenses/damages/allowable charges (other than rent), the
  balance must be returned within 14 days after determining those amounts, but no later than
  30 days after termination of the tenancy and delivery of possession.

1. What Can You Deduct?
   Missouri (common allowable categories)

• Unpaid rent.
• Tenant-caused damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.
• Charges permitted by the lease and consistent with law.
• Carpet-cleaning charges only if the lease provides for them and you can support the amount
  with receipts or reasonable documentation.
  Kansas (common allowable categories)
• Accrued rent.
• Damages beyond ordinary wear and tear.
• Other legally allowable charges specifically stated in the lease.

1. Ordinary Wear and Tear vs. Chargeable Damage
   2
   Ordinary wear and tear is deterioration from normal use despite reasonable care. Landlords should not
   charge tenants for items that are simply old, faded, or worn out from typical living.
   Examples that often qualify as ordinary wear and tear

• Minor scuffs on walls
• Faded paint
• Worn carpet in high-traffic areas
• Loose handles or minor hardware wear
  Examples that are commonly chargeable (if documented)
• Large holes, broken fixtures, or missing items
• Pet urine, burns, deep stains, or excessive damage to flooring
• Damage caused by unauthorized occupants or pets
• Failure to clean that rises to an abnormal level (for example, heavy grease buildup, odors, or filth
  requiring more than standard turnover cleaning)

1. Can the Landlord Do Repairs Themselves?
   Yes. In both states, landlords may perform their own repairs and deduct reasonable costs, but the amount
   must reflect actual work and actual materials.
   Best practices:
   ✓ Track time with dates and task descriptions.
   ✓ Use a reasonable hourly rate for handyman-level labor (not contractor rates unless you are a
   licensed contractor and the rate is supported).
   ✓ Keep receipts for materials.
   ✓ Include before-and-after photos.
   ✓ Avoid vague line items like “repairs” without detail.
2. Why Depreciation Belongs in Your Deposit Reconciliation
   Security deposits are not intended to give a landlord a brand-new replacement at the tenant’s expense. If
   an item was already partly used up, charging the tenant the full replacement cost can look like a “new-forold” upgrade. Depreciation solves that problem by charging only for the remaining value that was lost due
   to the tenant’s damage.
   How depreciation helps landlords

• Makes deductions easier to defend as reasonable and proportional.
• Reduces disputes by showing a fair calculation.
• Helps distinguish damage from normal aging and planned replacement.
  Common Useful Life Ranges (Best-Practice Benchmarks)
  Item Typical useful life
  Carpet 5 to 7 years
  Interior paint 3 to 5 years
  Appliances 5 to 10 years
  Laminate/vinyl flooring 7 to 10 years
  3
  Depreciation Example (Carpet)
  If carpet has a 7-year useful life and is 5 years old at move-out, only 2/7 of the replacement
  cost is typically chargeable, assuming the tenant’s conduct caused damage beyond normal
  wear and tear.
  Example calculation:
• Replacement cost: $1,400
• Useful life: 7 years
• Age: 5 years (2 years remaining)
• Chargeable amount: $1,400 × (2/7) = $400
  How to Show Depreciation in the Reconciliation Schedule
  Include all of the following in the line item:
• Item and location (for example, “Living room carpet”)
• Damage description (for example, “pet urine staining”)
• Installation/replacement date (or best-supported estimate)
• Useful life assumption (for example, 7 years)
• Replacement cost (invoice or estimate)
• Depreciation calculation and final chargeable amount

1. Penalties for Mishandling Deposits
   Missouri

• Wrongful withholding can expose the landlord to damages of twice the amount wrongfully
  withheld (RSMo 535.300).
  Kansas
• A landlord who wrongfully withholds may be liable for the amount wrongfully withheld
  plus 1.5 times that amount (K.S.A. 58-2550).

1. Best Practices Checklist (Reduce Disputes and Liability)

• Do a move-in inspection with a checklist and photos/video; do the same at move-out.
• Keep deposit documentation organized by unit (lease, photos, invoices, ledger, notices).
• Use clear, specific line items in the reconciliation; avoid lump-sum entries.
• Send the itemization and any refund on time (Missouri: 30 days; Kansas: 14 days after determining
  damages, not more than 30 days total).
• Mail to the tenant’s last known address even if they do not provide forwarding information.
• Use depreciation for items with a useful life (carpet, paint, appliances) to avoid “new-for-old.”
• Retain proof of mailing and keep copies of the itemization and supporting documents.
  Conclusion
  Handled correctly, a security deposit process protects the property and reduces conflict. Handled poorly,
  it creates easy claims for tenants and avoidable penalties for landlords. The best approach is consistent
  documentation, timely itemizations, and deductions that are reasonable, supported, and clearly explained.
  Need a Deposit Process You Can Reuse Across Properties?
  4
  Anderson & Associates helps Missouri and Kansas landlords build practical, compliant deposit systems,
  including lease language, move-in/move-out inspection tools, and court-ready reconciliation templates. If
  you want us to review your current deposit letter or itemization format, we can provide targeted feedback
  so your next turnover is smoother and more defensible. Contact us at julie@mokslaw.com or by clicking
  on “Message Us” at www.mokslaw.com.

July 23, 2025

Missouri landlords are breathing a sigh of relief following the recent enactment of House Bill 595 (HB 595), a state law that overrides several local ordinances, most notably a Kansas City law that sharply restricted how landlords screen tenants and effectively forced participation in federal housing assistance programs like Section 8.

At Anderson & Associates, we support this legislative shift as a reaffirmation of private property rights and a necessary recalibration of the landlord-tenant relationship in Missouri.

What Did the Kansas City Ordinance Require?

Prior to HB 595, Kansas City’s local ordinance prohibited landlords from:

• Denying applicants based on credit history or low credit scores.
• Denying applicants with criminal arrest records.
• Denying applicants with evictions older than one year.
• Refusing to accept Section 8 or other housing voucher applicants.
• Asking certain screening questions landlords typically rely on to mitigate risk.

Landlords who violated these restrictions faced steep penalties: up to $1,000 in fines, mandatory training, and even jail time for repeat violations.

This environment led many small landlords to leave the Kansas City rental market altogether, creating long-term consequences for housing availability and affordability.

HB 595: A Statewide Reset

Signed into law by Governor Mike Kehoe, HB 595 ensures that cities and counties in Missouri cannot enact ordinances that:

• Mandate participation in federal housing voucher programs.
• Restrict the screening tools landlords use to evaluate tenants (e.g., credit scores, eviction history, criminal background).
• Cap security deposits.
• Impose “right of first refusal” requirements on lease renewals or sales.

This law doesn’t target renters – it targets overregulation, restoring landlords’ ability to make sound business decisions without fear of legal jeopardy for routine screening practices.

The Consequences of Overregulation

As housing provider Stacey Johnson-Cosby of the KC Regional Housing Alliance put it: “The very things that we would normally screen and say no for, this ordinance said I cannot say no to them.”

That kind of forced leniency created unsustainable conditions. Even landlords who once had a mission to house veterans or underserved populations began exiting the market. When local landlords sell, often to national or out-of-state investors, tenants tend to experience higher rents and less responsive management.

Rather than protecting renters, the ordinance pushed affordable and compassionate housing options out of reach for many.

A Business Decision, Not Discrimination

Some critics frame HB 595 as permitting “discrimination” against housing voucher holders. In reality, landlords were being compelled to enter contracts with the federal government under federally dictated terms, including mandatory inspections and multi-month delays. Participation in such programs is—rightly—a business decision, not a civil rights issue.

As Johnson-Cosby aptly put it: “This is America, and private contracts shouldn’t be government mandates.”

Final Thoughts for Landlords and Tenants

HB 595 doesn’t ban voucher programs. It simply says participation can’t be forced. Landlords may still choose to accept Section 8 tenants, and many do. But now, that choice remains voluntary, as it should be.

At Anderson & Associates, we represent landlords and housing providers across Missouri and Kansas. We’re here to help you:

• Navigate the impact of HB 595 on your existing lease structures.
• Update tenant screening policies to comply with state law.
• Ensure your business practices are both lawful and sustainable.

If you’re unsure how HB 595 affects your rental properties, or if you’ve been impacted by prior local housing regulations, contact us today at 816-931-2207 or julie@mokslaw.com.

June 26, 2025

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, landlords across the country faced unprecedented financial hardship. In Summer 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium, effectively halting the ability of rental property owners to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent. While intended to address a public health emergency, the moratorium resulted in an estimated $23 billion in losses to landlords, according to the New York Times (July 28, 2021).

Now, the tide has turned. A federal appellate court has ruled that the CDC acted illegally and unconstitutionally. In Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

“It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts… Applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the CDC has exceeded its authority.”

Landmark Litigation: Darby Development v. United States

The landlord plaintiffs in Darby Development v. United States filed a lawsuit that seeks justice for landlords who suffered significant financial loss under the CDC’s overreach. This litigation is built on the foundation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which guarantees that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

The eviction moratorium denied landlords the right to enforce their lease agreements and collect rent, effectively commandeering private property for public policy purposes without compensation.

Who Is Eligible for Compensation?

Any rental property owner financially impacted by the CDC eviction moratorium may be eligible to join the lawsuit. However, properties located in jurisdictions that imposed more restrictive eviction bans than the CDC (e.g., California, New York, Oregon) are not eligible for participation with respect to those properties. Owners in both Missouri and Kansas are eligible for participation. 

Deadline to Join

To be eligible for compensation, landlords must join the lawsuit by September 1, 2026. After that, claims will no longer be accepted.

What Could You Recover?

Your recovery will be based on your net financial losses suffered due to the CDC moratorium. Each plaintiff’s damages will be assessed individually in the next phase of the litigation.

Cost to Participate

• $1,000 initial deposit toward shared litigation costs
• 20% contingency fee on any recovery
• Unused cost deposits will be refunded pro rata after the case concludes

What Are the Risks?

As with any litigation, there is a chance the case may not succeed. Plaintiffs may also expend time and internal resources (e.g., calculating losses) without guaranteed compensation. However, given the court’s ruling that the CDC acted unlawfully, the prospects for recovery are strong.

Next Steps

If your property or portfolio was harmed by the CDC eviction moratorium, contact John McDermott at (571) 675-5588 or jmcdermott@naahq.org (preferred) and let his team guide you through the process of asserting your legal rights.

At Anderson & Associates, we have a proven track record of representing landlords in Missouri and Kansas. We understand the complexity of landlord-tenant litigation and are committed to holding government actors accountable for the damage caused by unlawful regulation.

Let us know if you have questions or if we can help you recover what you’re owed.  Contact us at julie@mokslaw.com, 816-931-2207 (MO) 913-262-2207 (KS). 

June 2, 2025

House Bill 595 (HB 595) – Passed

HB 595, sponsored by Rep. Chris Brown, has been passed by both chambers of the Missouri Legislature and is now awaiting the governor’s signature. This bill prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances that:

• Require landlords to accept federal housing assistance (e.g., Section 8 vouchers) as income.
• Restrict landlords from setting income-qualifying criteria.
• Prohibit landlords from requesting tenant criminal records.
• Limit security deposit amounts.
• Mandate a tenant’s right of first refusal.

This legislation effectively overrides local ordinances like Kansas City’s 2024 source-of-income protection law.

House Bill 343 (HB 343) – Superseded

HB 343, initially sponsored by Rep. Ben Keathley, was merged into HB 595 during the legislative process. As a result, HB 343 did not advance independently and was effectively replaced by the provisions in HB 595.

Senate Bill 507 (SB 507) – In Progress

SB 507, sponsored by Sen. Nick Schroer, mirrors the provisions of HB 595. As of March 11, 2025, it was reported out of the Senate General Laws Committee with a “Do Pass” recommendation. However, it has not yet been brought to a full Senate vote.

What’s Next?

HB 595 is currently awaiting the governor’s signature. If signed, it will become law and take effect on August 28, 2025. This would prevent Missouri cities and counties from enforcing ordinances that require landlords to accept housing vouchers or impose related tenant protections.

SB 507 remains in the legislative process and has not yet been enacted.

May 21, 2025

THE SICK TENANT

Responsibility for the Tenant’s Health or Welfare

Landlords in Missouri and Kansas generally have no legal duty to provide medical care or intervene in a tenant’s health-related matters. This holds true unless the landlord operates a care facility or similar arrangement where health obligations are contractually established. That said, if a landlord has reason to believe that a tenant is experiencing a medical emergency, such as being unresponsive or visibly in distress, they should call 911. Doing so in good faith is not a breach of privacy, but rather a responsible action. However, landlords should not attempt to render medical assistance unless properly trained, as doing so can lead to liability for negligence, battery, wrongful death, or interference with emergency services. Missouri’s Good Samaritan law does provide protection for those trained in first aid who render emergency care in good faith. If no emergency is present, but the landlord is concerned about the tenant’s well-being, the appropriate course is to contact local law enforcement and request a wellness check. Landlords must not enter the rental unit unless legally justified (see analysis below).

Privacy and Fair Housing Considerations

Landlords must be mindful of both privacy and anti-discrimination laws when dealing with sick or incapacitated tenants. Under federal and state fair housing laws, a landlord cannot disclose a tenant’s medical conditions to others, nor inquire about such conditions unless it directly pertains to a reasonable accommodation request. Disabilities, including chronic and terminal illnesses, are protected under the Fair Housing Act, which means landlords are prohibited from engaging in harassment, providing unequal treatment, or refusing to make reasonable accommodations such as allowing a live-in aide or adjusting payment dates.

No Automatic Right to Entry

Missouri and Kansas law both require that a landlord provide reasonable notice, typically 24 hours, before entering a tenant’s unit, unless an emergency arises. Legal justification must exist, and unless the lease contains a clause granting entry for business purposes, the landlord may not access the unit without the tenant’s consent.

Emergency Entry

If a landlord reasonably believes that a tenant is seriously ill or incapacitated inside the unit (for example, due to missed rent, unanswered wellness checks, or foul odors) they may enter the unit to address the emergency. However, it is best to first contact emergency services and allow law enforcement to assess the situation. If a condition threatens property or other units, such as fire, flooding, gas leaks, or spoiled food, landlords may enter under the common law doctrine of necessity and pursuant to emergency clauses in the lease.

When emergency entry occurs, landlords should first attempt to contact the tenant. A written notice of entry should be left on the premises, and the landlord should document the visit thoroughly, including photographs before and after the entry. Landlords must avoid removing tenant belongings or assuming possession. In severe cases, reconnecting utilities may be necessary to preserve the unit, and landlords may have a right to later seek reimbursement.

Clearly drafted lease clauses can strengthen a landlord’s position. A typical right of entry clause permits entry with notice for operational purposes and without notice during emergencies. An abandonment clause can require tenants to maintain utilities, authorize emergency access, and specify liability for damages resulting from utility disconnection or negligence.

THE MISSING TENANT

Abandonment in Missouri – §441.065, RSMo

Missouri law allows landlords to remove a tenant’s belongings without a court order only if three elements are met: (1) the landlord has a reasonable belief that the tenant has vacated and does not intend to return, (2) the tenant has not paid rent for at least 30 days, and (3) a statutory notice has been sent by posting and mail. If the tenant does not respond or pay within 10 days, the landlord may dispose of the property without liability. This process should be used conservatively, as improper use can result in legal claims for trespass, conversion, wrongful eviction, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, potentially leading to treble damages and attorney fees.

Best practices include discreet inspection of the premises, posting a 24-hour entry notice, attempting to contact the tenant, and sending notices containing certificates of service. Landlords should photograph and document everything and retain records for 5 years. Leases should also include clauses stating that tenant property may be disposed of in accordance with applicable law and that the landlord will not be liable for doing so.

Missouri: Evicting a Missing Tenant

If a landlord cannot establish abandonment, they should file a rent and possession action to regain possession legally.  Alternatively, they can serve a termination notice for lease violations and proceed with an unlawful detainer action, although choosing the unlawful detainer route may involve delays due to service requirements.

Abandonment in Kansas – K.S.A. 58-2565

Kansas law recognizes two types of abandonment. The first applies when the tenant has been absent for over 30 days, rent is unpaid for at least 10 days, and a substantial portion of the tenant’s belongings has been removed. In this case, the landlord may assume abandonment unless the tenant notifies otherwise. The best practice is to post notice at the premises and inspect before concluding abandonment.

The second type concerns belongings left behind. The landlord must store the property for 30 days, publish a notice once in a local newspaper, mail the notice within 7 days of publication to the tenant’s last known address, and wait 30 days before selling or discarding the items. The tenant can redeem their property by paying all amounts due, including storage and sale costs.

Landlords must use these procedures cautiously. Mistaken assumptions of abandonment can result in claims of trespass, conversion, and violations under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Best practices include documentation, photographic evidence, use of certified mail, and retention of records for at least 2 years. Leases should specify the landlord’s rights regarding disposal of abandoned property.

Kansas: Evicting a Missing Tenant

If abandonment cannot be confirmed, the landlord should initiate a rent and possession action to lawfully regain the premises. Alternatively, they can serve a termination notice for lease violations and proceed with a forcible detainer action.

THE DEAD TENANT

Discovering a Body

If a landlord discovers what may be a deceased tenant, they should not enter or touch anything in the unit. They must call 911 immediately. Law enforcement and the coroner will manage the scene, and the landlord should provide access to tenant records and emergency contacts. Entry or cleaning of the unit should not occur until law enforcement provides clearance.

Biohazard Remediation

Landlords should hire a licensed trauma or biohazard cleanup service when dealing with decomposition, bodily fluids, or trauma. Professional remediation is essential to prevent exposure to health risks, comply with local regulations, and avoid liability or insurance issues. DIY cleanup can result in lawsuits, future tenant complaints, and rejection of insurance claims.

Lease and Rent Obligations After Death

In Missouri and Kansas, a tenant’s death does not terminate the lease automatically. The lease becomes part of the tenant’s estate. An executor or administrator can negotiate termination or remove belongings.

Locating Next of Kin

Landlords are not legally required to find next of kin but should make reasonable, good-faith efforts to protect themselves from liability. This may include checking the lease for emergency contacts, reviewing obituaries, contacting the probate court, or notifying law enforcement. All steps should be well documented.

Handling Property of Deceased Tenant

The landlord may not remove or dispose of personal property unless they receive a court order, obtain written consent from a legally authorized representative, or comply with abandonment statutes. If a next of kin steps forward, they must provide proof of legal authority, such as letters testamentary or a small estate affidavit.

A release signed by the next of kin should include their relationship to the tenant, acknowledgment of the tenant’s death, confirmation of their authority, waiver of claims to property and rent, and a hold harmless agreement. The release should be notarized. However, such a release does not necessarily shield the landlord from claims if the signor lacked authority or if possession was not lawfully regained.

If No Next of Kin

Landlords have three options: (1) they can take possession and store the property while waiting for a representative to emerge, which is 1 year in Missouri and 6 months in Kansas (2) they may contact the public administrator, who may handle unclaimed estates, or (3) they may open probate themselves, though this is rarely pursued due to time and cost. The 3^rd option may be worthwhile if the deceased left behind valuable property or unresolved rent.

Final Tip

If a landlord is unsure whether a tenant is deceased or simply missing, the most prudent step is to file a rent and possession action. This offers legal protection and a clear path to regaining possession of the rental property.  

If you are navigating a situation with an ill, incapacitated, missing or deceased tenant, we are here to help.   Reach out at julie@mokslaw.com or call 816-262-2207. A little legal foresight now can save you a world of litigation later.

April 23, 2025

As a landlord or property manager of a multifamily apartment complex in Missouri, one of your core responsibilities is maintaining the safety and comfort of your residents. When a visitor begins to cause disturbances, pose a threat, or otherwise overstay their welcome, you may need to take formal steps to bar them from the premises. Missouri law provides you with the authority to do so – only if it’s done correctly.

This post outlines your legal rights and best practices when issuing a No Trespass Notice to a non-tenant visitor at your property.

Legal Authority to Exclude Visitors

In Missouri, landlords and property managers, as lawful possessors of the property, have the legal authority to revoke access to non-tenant individuals. This includes any guest, visitor, or unauthorized occupant—particularly if their behavior is disruptive, harassing, illegal, or in violation of lease terms.

However, you must exercise this authority without infringing on a tenant’s lawful right to peaceful enjoyment or freedom of association, as protected under Missouri landlord-tenant law and the lease agreement.

You may validly exclude a visitor when:

• They have engaged in criminal or threatening behavior (e.g., drug use, violence, property damage, harassment).
• They have been the subject of complaints from tenants or staff.
• They are not connected to any current tenant or have exceeded any guest duration limits set in the lease.

Step-by-Step Guide: Issuing a No Trespass Notice

1. Document the Conduct

Start by compiling a detailed record of the conduct that led to your decision. This should include:

• Dates and times of incidents
• Written complaints from other tenants
• Security or surveillance footage
• Police reports or emergency service calls

This documentation provides critical support if enforcement or legal action becomes necessary.

• Deliver a Formal No Trespass Letter

Prepare a written notice to the visitor that includes:

• The individual’s full name or identifying details
• A clear statement that they are no longer welcome on the premises
• A warning that future entry will be considered criminal trespass under § 569.140, RSMo

Where possible, the notice should be hand-delivered in the presence of a witness or law enforcement officer.

• Notify the Tenant (if applicable)

If the barred visitor is connected to a current tenant, issue a separate notice to the tenant, informing them that:

• Their guest is no longer permitted on the property
• Allowing them to return may constitute a lease violation, possibly resulting in termination under “unauthorized occupants” or “illegal activity” provisions
• Coordinate with Law Enforcement

Provide a copy of the No Trespass Notice to your local police department, and request that they enforce the order if the barred individual returns. Missouri law allows them to act once a person has been explicitly informed in writing that they are not allowed on the property.

Key Statute: § 569.140, RSMo

“A person commits trespass in the first degree when he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property… after being notified not to do so by the owner or by another authorized person.”

This provision is what empowers property owners and managers to legally exclude non-tenants and to request police enforcement when boundaries are violated.

Cautions and Best Practices

• Avoid Discriminatory Enforcement: Base your decision on conduct alone—not on race, religion, gender, disability, familial status, or other protected characteristics. Doing otherwise may violate the Missouri Human Rights Act or Fair Housing Act.
• Review Your Lease: Make sure your lease includes guest policies and clauses that give you authority to act when visitors threaten the community’s safety or peace.
• Be Consistent: Apply your no trespass policy uniformly across residents and visitors to avoid claims of selective enforcement or retaliation.

Conclusion

Issuing a No Trespass Notice is a powerful tool for landlords – but one that must be used responsibly. When supported by documentation and delivered appropriately, it can protect your tenants, reduce liability, and maintain the integrity of your property.

If you need a customizable No Trespass letter, assistance communicating with local law enforcement, or a review of your lease documents to ensure enforceability, contact julie@mokslaw.com or call 816-262-2207. We are here to help Missouri landlords enforce their rights with clarity and confidence.

April 23, 2025

In a major development for affordable housing providers, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has finalized a rule mandating that landlords and public housing agencies (PHAs) must provide a minimum of 30 days’ written notice before initiating eviction proceedings for nonpayment of rent in HUD-assisted housing. The rule takes effect January 13, 2025, and will apply to public housing and project-based rental assistance (PBRA) programs, including Section 8, Section 202, and Section 811.

This uniform standard replaces a patchwork of inconsistent state laws and HUD program policies, and it reflects a shift in HUD’s approach toward preventing unnecessary evictions and reducing housing instability.

Who Is Covered by the Rule?

The 30-day notice requirement applies to the following HUD housing programs:

• Public Housing under 24 CFR Part 966
• Section 8 PBRA programs, including New Construction, Substantial Rehabilitation, and Moderate Rehabilitation
• Section 202/162 and 202 PRAC (Project Rental Assistance Contract)
• Section 811 PRAC and PRA (Project Rental Assistance)
• Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contract (SPRAC) properties

Both PHAs and private owners of PBRA properties are required to comply, though different compliance timelines apply. For example, PBRA owners must comply within 14 months of HUD publishing updated model leases, while PHAs must comply with new lease provisions by June 15, 2026​.

What Must the 30-Day Notice Include?

The rule mandates detailed content within the notice. Specifically, landlords must now provide:

• An itemized, month-by-month breakdown of the rent owed
• A separate list of permissible non-rent arrearages (such as late fees)
• A clear deadline by which the tenant must cure the rent default to avoid eviction
• Information on how to:
  • Request an income recertification
  • Apply for a minimum rent hardship exemption
  • Enter into a repayment agreement (encouraged by HUD)
  • Switch from flat rent to income-based rent (for PHAs)

Importantly, payment of the full rent owed (excluding fees) within the 30-day period is sufficient to prevent eviction under the rule—even if other charges remain unpaid​.

Why HUD Implemented This Rule

HUD’s goal is to reduce preventable evictions – a major driver of housing instability, job loss, and adverse health outcomes. Research cited by HUD confirms that even the threat of eviction can have cascading impacts, particularly for vulnerable households. Many tenants in HUD-assisted housing are extremely low-income, and often a single unexpected expense or administrative delay in recertification can lead to a lease violation​.

HUD found that eviction notices under the previous system varied widely depending on local law—ranging from 3 days to 30 days. This inconsistency disproportionately affected marginalized communities and undermined tenant protections across federally subsidized housing.

Landlord Considerations and Challenges

While this rule provides crucial tenant protections, it also introduces operational and financial challenges for landlords and PHAs. Smaller housing authorities expressed concern over longer arrears periods, increased write-offs, and impacts on HUD performance scores tied to rent collection.

To balance these concerns, HUD is encouraging landlords to use repayment agreements instead of seeking lump-sum payments, and to update leases using the forthcoming HUD-approved models within the implementation window. HUD emphasizes that eviction should be a last resort, and that housing providers can reduce delinquencies through better communication and proactive income recertification processes​.

Conclusion

This final rule marks a significant shift in HUD housing policy, embedding stronger due process protections for low-income renters while challenging housing providers to adopt more proactive strategies for resolving arrears.

If you are a landlord, PHA administrator, or housing manager, now is the time to:

• Review and revise your lease templates
• Implement staff training on hardship exemptions and repayment agreements
• Prepare for compliance monitoring beginning in 2025

For assistance navigating these new requirements or updating your compliance policies, contact us at andrew@mokslaw.com, julie@mokslaw.com or call 816-262-2207. We’re here to ensure you stay ahead of the curve while protecting both your property interests and the rights of your residents.

April 11, 2025

As a real estate investor in Missouri, selling a property “as is” can be a smart strategy – especially when dealing with flips, rental turnovers, or distressed properties. It’s a way to streamline the sale and avoid the time and cost of repairs. But there’s a common misconception we want to clear up:

Even in an “as is” sale, Missouri law still requires you to disclose certain known defects.

What “As Is” Really Means

When you sell a property “as is,” you’re telling the buyer they’re purchasing the home in its current condition—no upgrades, no fixes, no warranties. It’s the real estate equivalent of “what you see is what you get.”

However, “as is” does not mean you can stay silent about problems you’re aware of. You’re not obligated to repair issues – but you are obligated to disclose them. And this is where many sellers run into trouble. Just because you’re not making repairs doesn’t mean you can withhold information that could impact the buyer’s decision.

Missouri’s Disclosure Requirements

Missouri follows the legal doctrine of caveat emptor – “buyer beware” – but with key exceptions. Sellers are legally required to disclose any known material defects that could affect the property’s value, safety, or habitability, especially if they would not be obvious during a typical inspection.

In most transactions, this is done by completing a Seller’s Disclosure Statement, which typically covers:

• Roof and structural concerns
• Plumbing, HVAC, or electrical issues
• Water intrusion, leaks, or mold
• Termite or pest damage
• Foundation movement or cracks
• Environmental hazards (e.g., radon, asbestos, lead-based paint)
• Legal disputes or zoning violations

If you’re aware of these issues and fail to disclose it, you could be on the hook for fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of contract – even if the buyer agreed to purchase the property “as is.”

Best Practices: Protect Yourself and the Deal

To reduce your legal risk and keep the deal on solid ground, I advise all my investor clients to:

1. Be Transparent – Complete a full Seller’s Disclosure form, even in “as is” deals. It builds trust and protects you from future claims.
2. Be Clear in the Contract – Spell out that the sale is “as is” and that the seller will make no repairs or offer any credits.
3. Consider a Pre-Listing Inspection – Especially if you haven’t lived in the property, this helps you identify potential issues in advance, so you’re not caught off guard by the buyer’s inspection.

Need Help?

Selling “as is” doesn’t mean you’re off the hook for disclosures. In Missouri, honesty isn’t just a best practice – it’s the law.

If you’re preparing to sell and want to ensure your deal is properly structured, I’m here to help. Reach out at julie@mokslaw.com or call 816-262-2207. A little legal foresight now can save you a world of litigation later.

April 7, 2025

As a landlord in Kansas City, Missouri, it’s important to ensure that your rental business is not only profitable—but also compliant with local laws. One of the most frequently overlooked legal requirements is registering your rental units with the City. Failure to do so can result in fines, enforcement actions, or delays in evictions and collections.

Here’s a quick legal guide to help you stay compliant and avoid unnecessary legal headaches.

• Step 1: Register Your Business with the City (Form RD-100)

Whether you’re renting out a single-family home or managing a portfolio of multifamily units, all rental businesses must be registered and licensed to operate in Kansas City, Missouri.

To begin, you must file a Registration Application (Form RD-100). This form creates your tax accounts with the City and is required even if you already have a state-level LLC or business license.

The Application can be registered either through the Kansas City Quick Tax Portal located at https://quicktax.gentax.net/KCP/TAP/_/ or in person at City Hall – Business License Office (1st Floor), 414 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.

• Step 2: Zoning or Healthy Homes Clearance

Depending on whether your property is commercial or residential, additional steps apply:

Commercial Rental Properties must obtain a Zoning Clearance before operating which can be located at https://city.kcmo.org/kc/Forms/ZoningClrForm. 

Residential Rental Properties must be registered through the Health Department’s Healthy Homes Rental Registration Program. This includes rental inspections and compliance with housing codes designed to ensure safe, habitable conditions for tenants.

• Step 3: Wait for Tax Account Setup

Once your RD-100 application is processed, the City will create the necessary tax accounts associated with your business (e.g., earnings tax, rental income, etc.). You’ll receive a notice with your account numbers, which must be used on any returns or filings with the City, and when communicating with the Revenue Division.

Why Compliance Matters

Operating an unregistered rental business in Kansas City is a violation of the City Code. It may also:

• Invalidate court filings (including eviction actions),
• Trigger fines and penalties, or
• Delay enforcement of tenant obligations due to lack of registration.

If you’re unsure whether your property is properly registered, or if you’re acquiring new rentals and want to ensure compliance from Day 1, it’s a smart idea to consult with legal counsel familiar with local housing ordinances.

Need Help?
As real estate attorney serving the Kansas City area, we help landlords navigate all aspects of property management—from registration and licensing to lease enforcement and eviction litigation. If you’d like personalized legal guidance, contact us at julie@mokslaw.com or 913-262-2207.

March 25, 2025

Missouri law, including specific ordinances in Kansas City, provides important housing protections for tenants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking. As a landlord, it’s essential to understand what you can and cannot do in these situations to ensure compliance with state law and local ordinances—and to avoid potential legal liability.

This blog post outlines the key protections under Missouri Revised Statutes § 441.920 and Kansas City Ordinance No. 180516, so Missouri landlords—especially those with properties in Kansas City and Jackson County—know exactly where they stand.

Statewide: Missouri Law – RSMo § 441.920

Missouri law prohibits landlords from discriminating against tenants solely because they are victims (or are in imminent danger of becoming victims) of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, as defined in RSMo § 455.010.

What You Cannot Do:

• Deny tenancy based solely on a person’s status as a victim.
• Evict a tenant or declare them in violation of a lease solely because they are a victim.
• Refuse to release a tenant from future rent liability if the tenant provides the required documentation and vacates due to safety concerns.

What You Can Do:

• Request documentation to confirm the tenant’s protected status. Acceptable documentation includes:
  • A signed statement from a healthcare, mental health, or victim service provider made under penalty of perjury.
  • A police report or court order related to the incident.
• Charge a reasonable termination fee, such as one month’s rent, if a tenant ends the lease early under this statute.

Important Exceptions:

You may deny protections if:

• The victim allowed the perpetrator access to the property; or
• You reasonably believe the alleged perpetrator poses a threat to others or the property.

Kansas City (Jackson County) Ordinance – No. 180516

For landlords in Kansas City, local ordinance Sec. 50-109 expands on the protections provided under state law and includes specific rights to terminate a lease.

Tenant Rights in Kansas City:

• A tenant or their dependent who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking may:
  • Terminate the lease without penalty
  • Avoid liability for future rent
  • Recover their full security deposit (minus lawful deductions)
• Documentation must include either:
  • An ex parte or full order of protection, or
  • A statement signed by a medical provider confirming the abuse.

What Landlords Must Avoid:

• Retaliatory actions such as increasing rent, reducing services, or threatening eviction based on a tenant’s protected status.
• Interfering with a tenant’s lawful right to terminate the lease due to abuse.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Landlords who violate these state or local provisions may be subject to:

• Fines or criminal liability under local ordinances
• Civil claims for wrongful eviction or discrimination
• Loss of legal remedies in rent or possession actions if a tenant successfully raises an affirmative defense under RSMo § 441.920

Practical Tips for Landlords

1. Always document communications with tenants regarding claims of abuse.
2. Respond promptly and neutrally to any tenant request involving abuse-related issues.
3. Update your lease agreements and internal operations to comply with Missouri law and Kansas City ordinance.
4. Consult with legal counsel before taking action that could be construed as retaliatory or discriminatory.

Need guidance?
If you’re a Missouri landlord unsure how to handle a situation involving a tenant who claims to be a victim of abuse, our legal team is here to help. We can review your lease agreements, advise you on termination protocols, and ensure you’re protected while remaining compliant with the law. 

Contact us at julie@mokslaw.com or 913-262-2207 for guidance tailored to Missouri and Jackson County, Missouri landlords.

March 25, 2025

In Kansas, landlords are legally required to navigate tenant claims of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking with care and compliance. Under K.S.A. 58-25,137, tenants who are victims of these crimes—referred to as “protected persons”—are entitled to specific housing protections that landlords must follow.

Below is a summary of what landlords can and cannot do when a tenant claims protected status.

What Landlords Can Do:

1. Request Documentation

If a tenant informs you that they are a protected person, you may ask for supporting documentation. The tenant must provide:

• A statement about the abuse; and
• Upon your request, one of the following:
  • A document signed by both the tenant and a licensed professional (e.g., doctor, nurse, therapist) affirming the abuse occurred; or
  • A court order granting relief related to the abuse, such as a protection from abuse (PFA) order.
• Charge a Reasonable Early Termination Fee

You may charge a fee of up to one month’s rent if a protected tenant terminates the lease early—but only if the fee is clearly outlined in the lease agreement.

• Continue the Lease with Remaining Tenants

If the protected person terminates their lease, the lease remains in effect for any co-tenants who are not vacating.

What Landlords Cannot Do:

1. Deny Housing Based on Victim Status

You cannot refuse to rent to an applicant solely because they are a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking—if they otherwise qualify for tenancy.

• Evict or Penalize a Protected Tenant

A tenant cannot be evicted, fined, or found in violation of their lease for being a victim, as long as they meet the other qualifications for tenancy.

• Charge Rent After a Protected Tenant Vacates

If a tenant:

• Is a protected person, and
• Properly notifies you with the required documentation,

Then they are not liable for rent after the date they vacate the property.

• Require a Tenant to Waive These Rights

You cannot include clauses in your lease that force tenants to waive any of the rights afforded to them under this statute. Any such clause would be unenforceable.

What Happens If You Violate This Law?

If a landlord violates this section:

• The tenant may file suit.
• Courts may award statutory damages of $1,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

Final Thoughts

Landlords should treat any claim of abuse or victimization seriously, document communications carefully, and consult with legal counsel before taking any adverse action. Understanding your rights and responsibilities under K.S.A. 58-25,137 ensures compliance and protects both you and your tenants.

Need help reviewing your lease language or responding to a tenant’s claim under this statute? Contact us at julie@mokslaw.com or 913-262-2207 for guidance tailored to Kansas landlords.

March 20, 2025

For landlords, learning that a tenant has filed for bankruptcy can be unsettling. It raises critical questions about rent collection, eviction rights, and the future of the lease agreement. However, failing to handle the situation quickly and properly can expose you to legal risks, fines, or even lawsuits for violating the automatic stay imposed by the bankruptcy court.

Understanding what you can and cannot do when a tenant files for bankruptcy is essential for minimizing losses and protecting your legal rights. Herein, we outline the key steps landlords should take—and critical mistakes to avoid—when dealing with a tenant bankruptcy.

WHAT LANDLORDS SHOULD DO WHEN A TENANT FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

1. Take the Bankruptcy Notice Seriously

The moment a tenant files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay (11 U.S.C. § 362) is triggered. This means all collection efforts must stop immediately, including eviction proceedings for unpaid rent.

• Review the bankruptcy notice carefully.
• Determine the type of bankruptcy the tenant filed (Chapter 7 or Chapter 13).
• Assess whether the tenant intends to assume or reject the lease.

2. Verify Whether the Tenant Is Paying Rent

A tenant in bankruptcy must still pay ongoing rent if they continue living on the property.

• Chapter 7 (Liquidation): The tenant has 60 days to assume or reject the lease. If assumed, they must pay rent moving forward.
• Chapter 13 (Repayment Plan): The tenant may continue renting while incorporating past-due payments into a court-approved plan.

3. File a Proof of Claim for Unpaid Rent (if Available)

If a tenant owes back rent, landlords should file a Proof of Claim with the bankruptcy court if the court provides you with this opportunity. This ensures you are recognized as a creditor and may recover some of the unpaid rent from available estate funds. 

4. Seek Relief from the Automatic Stay (If Necessary)

If the tenant stops paying rent, damages the property, or violates lease terms, landlords must ask the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay to proceed with eviction.

Work with an attorney to draft a Motion for Relief from Stay, demonstrating the tenant’s default. Courts are likely to grant this request if:

• The tenant fails to pay rent after filing for bankruptcy.
• The lease expired before the bankruptcy was filed.
• The property is at risk due to tenant negligence.
• The tenant is violating the lease for reasons other than non-payment

WHAT LANDLORDS SHOULD NOT DO WHEN A TENANT FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

1. Do NOT Attempt to Evict Without Court Approval

Landlords cannot proceed with an eviction for unpaid rent without the bankruptcy court’s approval. Violating the automatic stay can result in fines, damages, or legal penalties.  Landlords cannot use self help to remove a tenant including changing locks, shutting off utilities, or removing the tenant’s belongings without a court order.

2. Do NOT Demand Payment for Past-Due Rent

Once a bankruptcy is filed, landlords must stop all collection attempts, even informal ones. Directly requesting payment from the tenant can be a legal violation.  Landlords are prohibited from:

• Sending payment reminders or past-due notices.
• Calling or emailing the tenant about rent.
• Filing lawsuits to recover unpaid amounts without court permission.

Instead, file a Proof of Claim with the bankruptcy court to seek recovery through legal channels.

3. Do NOT Ignore Lease Termination Notices from the Tenant

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a tenant may reject the lease, meaning they choose to terminate it as part of the bankruptcy process. If this happens, the tenant must vacate, but landlords can still file a claim for unpaid rent.  Landlords should avoid:

• Trying to force the tenant to stay.
• Negotiating a separate arrangement outside of bankruptcy court.

Navigating tenant bankruptcy can be challenging, but landlords have rights. If you are facing this situation, Anderson & Associates is here to help. Please reach out to us at julie@mokslaw.com or 816-931-2207 in Missouri and 913-262-2207 in Kansas. 

March 4, 2025

On March 2, 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a significant policy shift regarding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The department will suspend enforcement of penalties and fines associated with the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements for U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies. This move aims to alleviate regulatory burdens on small businesses and ensure that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest. ​

Background on the Corporate Transparency Act

Enacted in 2021, the CTA was designed to combat illicit financial activities by requiring businesses to disclose their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The goal was to increase transparency and prevent the misuse of anonymous shell companies for money laundering, fraud, and other financial crimes. ​

Details of the Treasury’s Announcement

The Treasury’s recent decision includes the following key points:​

• Suspension of Enforcement: The department will not enforce any penalties or fines related to BOI reporting under the existing regulatory deadlines for U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies. ​
• Proposed Rulemaking: The Treasury plans to issue a proposed rulemaking that would narrow the scope of the BOI reporting requirements to foreign reporting companies only. ​

Implications for U.S. Businesses

This policy change has several implications:​

• Reduced Regulatory Burden: Small businesses and domestic companies may experience relief from the compliance obligations previously mandated by the CTA. ​
• Focus Shift: By narrowing the scope to foreign reporting companies, the Treasury aims to target entities more likely to engage in illicit financial activities, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the regulations. ​

Reactions to the Decision

The suspension has elicited mixed reactions:​

• Support from Business Advocates: Proponents argue that the suspension reduces unnecessary regulatory pressure on small businesses, allowing them to operate more freely and contribute to economic growth. ​
• Criticism from Transparency Groups: Opponents express concern that limiting BOI reporting could increase the U.S.’s vulnerability to illicit activities, such as money laundering and terrorism financing. ​

Next Steps

The Treasury Department intends to seek public feedback on the proposed modifications to the BOI reporting rules later this year. Businesses are advised to stay informed about these developments and participate in the rulemaking process to ensure their interests are considered. ​

In conclusion, the Treasury’s suspension of CTA enforcement marks a pivotal change in the regulatory landscape for U.S. businesses. While it aims to reduce compliance burdens, companies should remain vigilant and engaged as the rulemaking process unfolds.

March 3, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced a three‑month pause on its directive that would have imposed new federally mandated landlord-tenant requirements on covered multifamily properties financed through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The pause delays implementation until at least May 31, 2025—a decision hailed by many in the real estate industry as a timely reprieve.

What the Directive Would Have Required

Under the proposed directive, rental properties with new loans signed on or after the effective date would have been subject to several new rules designed to protect tenants. These include:

• 30-Day Notice for Rent Increases: Landlords would be required to give tenants 30 days’ notice before any rent hike.
• 30-Day Notice for Lease Expirations: Tenants would receive advance notice regarding the expiration of their leases.
• Five-Day Grace Period for Late Fees: A brief grace period before late fees could be applied.

Additionally, policy grids issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stipulated that housing providers must notify residents about these new protections and update all residential lease agreements accordingly.

Industry Response and the NAA’s Standpoint

The pause comes in response to concerns raised by the National Apartment Association (NAA) and its coalition partners. In a comment letter to the FHFA, NAA argued that:

• Unnecessary Complexity: Requiring millions of leases to be updated is redundant since state and local laws already afford robust protections for renters.
• Public Interest Considerations: The mandated changes may not serve the public interest, considering the multiple layers of regulation that already govern landlord-tenant relations.
• Policy Reevaluation Needed: NAA urged the FHFA to reassess the directive in light of President Trump’s executive orders and memoranda. They contend that the Biden-era policies under review may not align with current Presidential priorities and that additional time is necessary for a comprehensive evaluation.

For users of NAA’s Click & Lease system, a broadcast has been issued announcing the retraction of the new FHFA Amendment to Lease Contract that was originally released on February 12, 2025.

What This Means for Landlords and Housing Providers

The three‑month pause in implementing these requirements offers landlords and housing providers immediate relief. It means that:

• No Immediate Lease Overhaul: There is no urgent need to revise lease agreements or notify tenants of the new mandated protections.
• Time to Adapt: Landlords have additional time to consult with legal counsel and evaluate how, or if, to integrate these changes into their existing operations.
• Regulatory Uncertainty: The pause provides a window during which stakeholders and policymakers can further discuss and refine the directive to better align with industry realities and tenant protections already in place at the state and local levels.

Looking Ahead

While the pause is a positive development for many in the industry, it is important for landlords and property managers to stay informed. Regulatory landscapes can evolve rapidly, and proactive legal guidance will be essential in ensuring compliance and protecting your interests.

If you have questions about how these regulatory changes might affect your lease agreements or your overall compliance strategy, please do not hesitate to contact our office at julie@mokslaw.com or 816-931-2207.  Anderson & Associates is here to help you navigate these complex issues and prepare for any future changes in the regulatory environment.

February 24, 2025

Kansas City Ordinance 241074—adopted on January 16, 2025—is often described as a “second chance” law. It amends sections of Chapter 2 (Administration) and Chapter 38 (Civil Rights) of the city’s Code of Ordinances to include persons with criminal histories as a protected class. This means that, in addition to protections based on race, gender, religion, and other factors, individuals with criminal records now have legal safeguards against discrimination in employment, housing, and other areas under the city’s ordinances. The measure, sponsored by Councilmember Melissa Robinson and supported by a 9‑3 vote, is intended to help combat the long-term impacts of incarceration by reducing the stigma and barriers that follow a criminal record.

Below are the key provisions of Ordinance 241074 that affect housing:

1. Expanded Protected Class:
   The ordinance amends the city’s Code of Ordinances to add individuals with criminal histories to the list of protected classes. This means that, in housing matters, a person cannot be treated differently—or be denied housing—solely because of their criminal record.
2. Prohibition on Housing Discrimination:
   Under the amended provisions, landlords and housing providers must not base decisions (such as denying a rental application, imposing different terms, or evicting) solely on an applicant’s criminal history. Any housing decision must consider all available information rather than using a criminal record as a blanket disqualifier.
3. Holistic Evaluation Requirement:
   When assessing a rental application, housing providers are now expected to evaluate factors like:
   • The nature and severity of any past convictions,
   • The recency of the criminal conduct, and
   • The relevance of the conviction(s) to the tenancy or housing situation.

This approach is intended to ensure that housing decisions are made fairly and that individuals are not automatically penalized for past convictions that may have little bearing on their ability to maintain a tenancy. 

Here are some tips for landlords looking to screen applicants based on criminal background while staying compliant with fair housing and “second chance” laws:

• Establish a Consistent Screening Process:
  Use the same screening criteria for all applicants. A uniform process helps ensure you’re applying the rules fairly and reduces the risk of discrimination claims.
• Evaluate Criminal History on a Case-by-Case Basis:
  Instead of automatically rejecting an applicant with a criminal record, consider:
  • Severity and Nature: How serious was the offense, and was it violent or non-violent?
  • Recency: How long ago did the offense occur?
  • Relevance: Does the conviction relate directly to the responsibilities of tenancy?
  • Rehabilitation Evidence: Has the applicant demonstrated efforts to rehabilitate or improve their situation?

We recommend you using criteria similar to Anderson & Associates’ Sample Screening Criteria located at https://mokslaw.com/forms/ under the “Additional Information” column. 

• Use Reputable Screening Services:
  Partner with a background screening company that complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) local and federal laws. This helps ensure that the information you receive is accurate and up to date.
• Document Your Decision-Making Process:
  Keep detailed records of the screening process, including the criteria used and the reasons for any adverse decisions. Documentation can be crucial if an applicant challenges your decision.
• Train Your Staff:
  Make sure all team members involved in the screening process are aware of the legal guidelines and understand how to assess criminal records fairly.
• Consider a Holistic Approach:
  Look at the full picture by also considering factors such as rental history, creditworthiness, employment stability, and personal references. This balanced approach can help offset concerns about criminal history.
• Stay Updated on Local Ordinances:
  Anderson & Associates posts blogs on laws like Kansas City Ordinance 241074 and will continue to provide additional guidance on how criminal history should be treated. Regularly review any changes at https://mokslaw.com/blog/ to ensure ongoing compliance.

Note: While these tips can guide you in developing a fair and legal screening process, they are not a substitute for legal advice. For advice tailored to your specific situation, please contact Anderson & Associates at julie@mokslaw.com or call 816-931-2207. 

February 23, 2025

Introduction

On February 17, 2025, the Kansas House Committee on Federal and State Affairs convened to debate House Bill 2378 – a proposed measure designed to streamline the process for removing unauthorized occupants, or squatters, from residential properties. Dubbed the “Removal of Squatters Act”, this bill aims to empower property owners while addressing longstanding concerns over a lengthy and cumbersome eviction process.

Background and Legislative Rationale

At its core, HB 2378 is premised on the belief that property owners possess a fundamental right to exclude individuals who unlawfully occupy their property. Kansas Representative Will Carpenter, a vocal proponent of the bill, noted during the committee discussion that although squatting may not be a pervasive issue in Kansas today, preemptive measures are essential to forestall future complications. Carpenter has a history of advocating similar legislation, underscoring the need for a more efficient and effective legal mechanism to handle squatting disputes.

The bill’s legislative intent is clear:

• Protecting Property Rights: It reiterates that the right to own property includes the right to exclude unauthorized occupants.
• Ensuring Timely Relief: By creating a statutory process for removing squatters, the act seeks to reduce delays inherent in traditional eviction proceedings.

Key Provisions of HB 2378

1. Affidavit Requirement for Removal
Under Section 2, the act mandates that a property owner—or their authorized agent—must file a detailed affidavit with the local county sheriff to request the removal of an unauthorized occupant. This affidavit must contain:

• A declaration of ownership or agency.
• Evidence that the individual in question has unlawfully entered or remained in the dwelling.
• A confirmation that the person is neither a tenant (or holdover tenant) nor an immediate family member of the owner.
• A statement confirming that the owner has requested the person vacates the premises, without success.

2. Duties of the County Sheriff
Section 3 outlines the responsibilities of the county sheriff once an affidavit is filed:

• Verification: The sheriff must confirm the affiant’s legal standing as the property owner or authorized agent.
• Notice Service: After a minimum waiting period of 24 hours, the sheriff is required to serve a notice on the unauthorized occupant, either in person or by posting it on the dwelling’s entrance.
• Enforcement Powers: The sheriff is empowered to arrest the occupant if other criminal activities (such as trespassing or burglary) are identified. A nominal fee of up to $50 may be charged for processing the affidavit.

3. Safeguards Against Abuse
To prevent misuse, Section 4 imposes a penalty on any owner or agent who knowingly submits a false affidavit. Such a violation could result in a class A nonperson misdemeanor, thereby deterring frivolous or malicious filings.

4. Liability Protections and Civil Remedies
The act provides county sheriffs and related entities with broad immunity for actions taken in good faith. However, it also opens the door for civil litigation:

• Section 6 allows any person who suffers wrongful removal under the act to pursue a civil cause of action.
• Potential remedies include the restoration of possession, recovery of actual costs and damages, and, in some instances, punitive damages calculated at triple the fair market rent of the dwelling.

5. Definitions and Procedural Clarifications
Section 7 consolidates the act under the title “Removal of Squatters Act” and clarifies key terms:

• Squatter: Defined as a person occupying a dwelling without entitlement under a lease or rental agreement and without authorization from a tenant.
• Importantly, the bill specifies that removal actions under this act are distinct from traditional eviction proceedings governed by the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act.

Legislative Debate and Stakeholder Perspectives

During the recent House Committee session, several perspectives emerged:

• Proponents’ View:
  • Efficiency and Clarity: Supporters, including Representative Carpenter, argue that the act would provide a much needed, streamlined process to address squatting, reducing delays and legal uncertainties.
  • Law Enforcement Support: Sedgwick County Sheriff Jeffrey Easter, representing the Kansas Sheriffs’ Association, highlighted that the act could expedite removals. However, he also stressed the need for additional discussions regarding judicial review and contingencies if a squatter refuses to vacate.
• Critics’ Concerns:
  • Tenant and Homeless Rights: Dustin Hare of Kansas Action for Children warned that the bill might undermine the rights of tenants and could disproportionately impact individuals experiencing homelessness. Hare argued that by potentially circumventing the traditional eviction process, the bill might allow landlords undue power to remove occupants without adequate judicial oversight.
  • Potential for Abuse: Critics contend that the affidavit’s relatively low evidentiary standard could enable misuse, where landlords might exploit the process to remove individuals for reasons unrelated to unauthorized occupancy.

Practical Implications for Property Owners and Tenants

For Property Owners:
HB 2378 offers a promising avenue for quickly addressing squatting issues without the prolonged timelines typical of eviction litigation. However, owners must exercise caution. The strict affidavit requirements and the significant penalties for false claims necessitate diligent documentation and a robust understanding of one’s legal rights.

For Tenants and Occupants:
While the act is designed to protect property rights, it also raises concerns about potential overreach. The streamlined process for removal may reduce procedural safeguards traditionally afforded to occupants, particularly in cases where occupancy disputes are not clear-cut. Individuals facing removal under this act could have recourse through civil litigation, but proving wrongful removal may pose significant challenges.

Conclusion

Kansas House Bill 2378 represents a significant development in property law, proposing a bold shift in how unauthorized occupancy is managed. While the bill aims to bolster property rights and streamline removal procedures, its potential impact on tenant protections and the risk of abuse have sparked considerable debate.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on how to handle a squatter today. For advice tailored to your specific situation, please contact Anderson & Associates’ eviction department at evict@mokslaw.com or call 816-931-2207. 

February 22, 2025

The legal battle over Kansas City’s mandatory Section 8 acceptance ordinance continues, with Jones & Vogel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri (Case No. 4:24-cv-00649-RK) now moving forward to the next phase of litigation. After securing a preliminary injunction on February 11, 2025, plaintiffs Kennedy F. Jones and Stephen J. Vogel have successfully halted enforcement of the city’s ordinance that required landlords to accept Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) as a condition of renting their properties.

Now, the case heads into formal scheduling and pre-trial proceedings, which will determine the timeline for discovery, motion filings, and potential trial dates.

Background: The Legal Challenge Against Kansas City’s Ordinance

Kansas City passed Ordinance No. 231019, which amended its housing discrimination laws to prohibit landlords from rejecting tenants based on their source of income, including Section 8 vouchers. The plaintiffs, who are private landlords, challenged the ordinance on two constitutional grounds:

1. Fourth Amendment Violation – They argued that being required to accept Section 8 tenants forced them into mandatory government inspections and compliance requirements, effectively coercing them into waiving their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Supremacy Clause Violation – Under federal law, landlord participation in Section 8 is voluntary, and the plaintiffs claimed the city’s ordinance conflicted with federal housing statutes, rendering it unconstitutional.

Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark agreed with these arguments, issuing a preliminary injunction that prevents the city from enforcing the ordinance while the case is litigated.

Upcoming Case Scheduling: What to Expect Next

With the preliminary injunction granted, the case now moves into the pretrial phase, which includes the following key steps:

Case Scheduling Conference

A case scheduling conference will be held soon, during which both parties will discuss:

• Deadlines for discovery (exchange of evidence, documents, and depositions).
• Motion filing deadlines (such as summary judgment motions).
• Pretrial hearings and trial scheduling.  The court will issue a scheduling order outlining these deadlines.

Discovery Phase

During discovery, both parties will exchange:

• Documents related to the ordinance and its enforcement.
• Deposition testimony from city officials, landlords, and housing experts.
• Expert reports on the legal and economic impact of forced Section 8 participation.
  This phase is critical because it allows each side to gather evidence to support their claims before trial.

Summary Judgment Motions

Either side may file a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no trial is necessary because the facts are undisputed, and the law is in their favor.

• If granted, the case could be resolved without trial.
• If denied, the case would proceed to trial.

Potential Appeal by Kansas City

Kansas City may decide to appeal the preliminary injunction ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the appellate court overturns the injunction, the city could begin enforcing the ordinance again while the case proceeds.

Trial or Settlement

If no summary judgment is granted, the case will go to trial for a final decision on the constitutionality of the ordinance. However, before trial, the city and the landlords could reach a settlement to modify the ordinance in a way that avoids further litigation.

Implications of This Case

The outcome of Jones & Vogel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri could have nationwide implications for landlord rights and housing policy. If the plaintiffs prevail, it may set a legal precedent that challenges similar source-of-income discrimination laws in other cities.

• For landlords: The ruling could reinforce their right to choose whether to participate in Section 8 without being compelled by local ordinances.
• For cities: It may force municipalities to reconsider how they structure housing discrimination laws to comply with federal legal standards.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

The next major development in this case will be the case scheduling conference, which will set the timeline for discovery, motion practice, and trial. Additionally, Kansas City’s potential appeal could impact whether the injunction remains in place.

With high stakes for landlords, tenants, and city policymakers, this case will continue to be closely watched as it moves through the courts.

For landlords and property owners seeking guidance on how this ruling may impact their rental policies, or for legal representation in housing disputes, contact our firm today at (816)931-2207 or julie@mokslaw.com for legal assistance.

Stay Updated on Jones & Vogel v. Kansas City

We will continue to monitor this case and provide updates on new rulings, filings, and legal implications.  Periodically review our blog or schedule a consultation with our legal team for personalized advice on landlord-tenant law and regulatory compliance.

February 20, 2025

On February 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reinstated the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) following its decision in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.). This decision lifts the previous stay on FinCEN’s enforcement of the rule, making BOI reporting mandatory once again.

However, recognizing the compliance challenges businesses face, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has extended the BOI reporting deadline by 30 days, with most companies now required to file by March 21, 2025.

Key Updates on BOI Reporting Deadlines

FinCEN has issued updated guidance regarding BOI reporting obligations:

• New Deadline for Most Reporting Companies
  • Companies that were previously required to report by February 19, 2025, now have until March 21, 2025, to file an initial, updated, or corrected BOI report.
  • FinCEN may announce further modifications before this new deadline.
• Later Deadlines for Certain Entities
  • Companies that had a later reporting deadline due to disaster relief extensions or other special circumstances must adhere to their originally assigned deadline (e.g., April 2025 filers still follow the April deadline).
• Exemptions for Certain Businesses
  • Entities involved in National Small Business United v. Yellen (Case No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)) remain exempt from reporting at this time.
  • This exemption includes Isaac Winkles, any companies where he is a beneficial owner, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024).
• Filing Process
  • BOI reports must be filed electronically through FinCEN’s E-Filing system at boiefiling.fincen.gov.
  • Filing remains free of charge.

Why Did the BOI Reporting Deadline Change?

This extension follows a series of legal challenges against the Corporate Transparency Act’s reporting rules:

1. January 7, 2025 – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a stay preventing FinCEN from enforcing BOI reporting requirements.
2. February 5, 2025 – The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the ruling and requested a stay of the court’s order.
3. February 18, 2025 – The court agreed to stay its January 7 order pending the appeal, effectively reinstating BOI reporting obligations.
4. Ongoing Legal Review – FinCEN plans to revise its BOI reporting rule to reduce regulatory burdens on lower-risk businesses, particularly small businesses.

What This Means for Your Business

Businesses subject to BOI reporting must comply with the new March 21, 2025, deadline unless they qualify for a later reporting date. Failure to comply could result in penalties, making it critical for companies to review their filing obligations as soon as possible.

Additionally, with FinCEN signaling a future rule revision, businesses should stay informed about potential modifications to BOI reporting requirements, particularly for low-risk entities.

If you need assistance determining your BOI reporting obligations, filing your report, or understanding potential exemptions, our law firm is here to help. Contact us today at julie@mokslaw.com for compliance guidance and legal counsel tailored to your business.

Stay Compliant with BOI Reporting

Our firm is closely monitoring these regulatory developments and can assist with:

✅ Determining whether your company must report BOI
✅ Filing your BOI report accurately and on time
✅ Identifying exemptions and compliance strategies
✅ Navigating ongoing legal changes to the CTA

For expert legal guidance, contact us today at julie@mokslaw.com to ensure your business remains compliant with the latest FinCEN reporting requirements.

February 13, 2025

A federal court has blocked Kansas City, Missouri, from enforcing a controversial ordinance
requiring landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers as part of their rental qualification
process. In the case Jones & Vogel v. City of Kansas City, Missouri (Case No. 4:24-cv-00649-
RK), Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark granted the preliminary injunction on February 11, 2025,
effectively halting enforcement of the ordinance while the case proceeds.

Background: Kansas City’s Ordinance and the Lawsuit
Kansas City’s Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 231019 was enacted to expand fair
housing protections. It prohibited landlords from rejecting tenants based on their source of
income, explicitly including federal Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8).
Landlords Kennedy F. Jones and Stephen J. Vogel filed a lawsuit, arguing the ordinance was
unconstitutional because:

o It violated their Fourth Amendment rights by forcing them to consent to warrantless
inspections and other program regulations required under the Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payments (HAP) contract.
o It conflicted with federal law, which makes landlord participation in Section 8 voluntary,
thus violating the Supremacy Clause.
The landlords requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance
while the case was litigated.

Key Court Findings
In a 17-page order, Judge Ketchmark ruled in favor of the landlords, citing the following key
reasons:

1. The Ordinance Effectively Mandates Section 8 Participation
   o While the ordinance does not explicitly force landlords to participate in Section 8,
   its structure makes participation mandatory in practice.
   o The prior version of the City Code protected landlords’ right to opt out of subsidy
   programs, but that safeguard was removed in the amended ordinance.
2. Likely Fourth Amendment Violation
   o Landlords must sign a HAP contract to accept Section 8 vouchers, which requires
   them to consent to government inspections of their rental units and business
   records.
   o Because landlords face fines and penalties for non-compliance, any consent to the
   searches would be coerced, violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against
   unreasonable searches and seizures.
3. Risk of Irreparable Harm to Landlords
   o The court recognized that constitutional rights violations cause irreparable harm.
   o Without an injunction, landlords could be forced to accept Section 8 tenants,
   triggering mandatory government oversight, inspections, and other burdens.
4. Balancing of Interests and Public Impact
   o While the ordinance aimed to expand housing options for low-income tenants,
   preserving constitutional rights outweighs policy goals.
   o The public interest is best served by protecting landlords’ Fourth Amendment
   rights.

What Happens Next?
o The injunction takes effect immediately and will remain in place while the case is
litigated.
o Kansas City cannot enforce the ordinance against landlords declining Section 8 vouchers.
o The case is ongoing, and a final ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance is still
pending.

February 11, 2025

If you need to move a tenant out of your property in Missouri without going through a formal
eviction, there are several legal and strategic approaches you can take. Your options will depend
on whether the tenant has a lease or is renting on a month-to-month basis.
Options to Remove a Tenant Without an Eviction Filing

1. Negotiate a Voluntary Move-Out (“Cash for Keys”)
   One of the quickest and least stressful ways to remove a tenant is to offer an incentive (e.g.,
   covering moving costs, forgiving past rent, or offering cash) in exchange for them voluntarily
   moving out by a specific date. This is called a “Cash for Keys” agreement and should be
   documented in writing to protect both parties.
2. Send a Formal Non-Renewal Notice (For Month-to-Month Tenants)
   If the tenant is renting month-to-month, you can legally terminate the tenancy by providing
   proper written notice:
   • Missouri law (§ 441.060 RSMo) requires at least 30 days’ written notice before the end of
     the rental period.
   • If the tenant does not leave after the notice period, they become a holdover tenant, and
     you may have to proceed with an eviction.
3. Issue a Lease Non-Renewal Notice (For Fixed-Term Leases Ending Soon)
   If the tenant has a fixed-term lease (e.g., a 12-month lease) that is expiring soon, you can provide
   written notice that the lease will not be renewed.
   • Missouri law does not require a specific amount of notice for non-renewal, but 30-60
     days’ notice is generally recommended.
4. Serve a Lease Violation Notice (If the Tenant Has Violated the Lease)
   If the tenant has violated the lease terms (e.g., damaging property, unauthorized occupants, non-
   payment of rent), you can issue a formal notice to cure or vacate.
   • Missouri law typically requires a 10-day notice for lease violations (§ 441.040 RSMo)
     before further legal action.
5. Offer Assistance in Finding a New Place
   Some tenants may be willing to move if assistance is provided, such as:
   • Helping them find another rental.
   • Providing references for new landlords.
   • Covering moving expenses (if it ensures a smooth transition).
   • Rental assistance referrals are available at https://mokslaw.com/tenant-resources/.

What If the Tenant Refuses to Leave?

If the tenant does not leave after a voluntary agreement, lease termination, or violation notice,
your only legal option is to proceed with an eviction filing in court.

• Do not engage in self-help eviction, such as changing locks or shutting off utilities—this
  is illegal in Missouri (§ 441.233 RSMo).
• If needed, our Firm can assist with the eviction process.
  How to Refer an Eviction to Anderson & Associates
  Please follow the steps below to refer an eviction matter to the Firm:

1. Go to https://mokslaw.com/.
2. Click on the “File a Case” button (located in the upper middle corner of the screen).
3. Fill out the case information, including:
   o Client Information
   o Billing Information
   o Property Information
   o Resident Information
   o Service of the Eviction Information
   o Reason for the Eviction
   o Collection Information
   o Acceptance of the Attorney/Client Engagement Agreement
4. Upload supporting documents, including the Lease Agreement, Ledger, and Notices.
5. Submit the case by clicking the green “Submit” button.
6. Our eviction team will promptly email you with a copy of your file and a 5-digit internal
   file number.
   If you have questions or need assistance drafting a non-renewal or move-out agreement, please
   reach out to us at julie@mokslaw.com or evict@mokslaw.com.  We look forward to assisting
   you!