Rule 54.18.Service Authorized by Statute.
Part I · Rule 54: Issuance and Service of Summons or Other Process · Last amended September 1, 1973 · Last verified July 22, 2026
Full Text of Rule 54.18
Amendment History
Adopted Jan. 19, 1973, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Official Comment
This is new.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 54.18 resolves any tension between statutory service methods and the service rules found in Rule 54 itself. Some Missouri statutes prescribe their own way of serving process for particular kinds of actions or defendants. Instead of forcing a choice between the statute and the rules, or requiring compliance with both at once, Rule 54.18 lets the party serving process choose either path.
That flexibility matters in the several places Rule 54 already cross-references specific statutes — nonresident motorist and watercraft statutes referenced in Rule 54.08, the foreign corporation statute referenced in Rule 54.09, and the insurance statute referenced in Rule 54.10 all illustrate situations where a statute supplies the underlying authorization and Rule 54.18 confirms that the statute’s own service method remains a valid alternative to the Rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Rule 54.18 do?
It allows service to be made under a statute’s own prescribed method of service, or under the methods provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure, when a statute contains provisions for a method of service.
Must a party pick only one path — the statute or the rules — and stick with it?
The rule frames it as service may be made pursuant to the statute’s provisions or as provided by the Rules, giving the serving party the choice of either valid method.
Does Rule 54.18 apply broadly or only to certain kinds of cases?
It applies generally whenever a statute contains its own service-of-process provisions, without limiting the rule to any single category of case.
Is Rule 54.18 a new addition to Missouri’s rules?
The official comment describes it as new at the time Rule 54 was adopted.
Why would a party choose the statutory method over the Rules of Civil Procedure, or vice versa?
The rule does not dictate a preference; it confirms both paths are available, leaving the choice to whichever method best fits the facts of the case and the defendant being served.