It shall be sufficient to aver the ultimate fact of the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of a corporation or of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a person desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, the person shall do so by specific negative averment, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader’s knowledge. When a party so raises such issue, the burden of proof thereon shall be placed upon the opposite party.
Rule 55.13.Averments as to Capacity or Authority of Parties to Sue or be Sued.
Part I · Rule 55: Pleadings, Motions and Hearing · Last amended January 1, 1994 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceRule 55.13 lets a pleader allege capacity to sue or be sued, authority to sue in a representative role, or a corporation’s legal existence by averring the ultimate fact alone, but requires anyone challenging capacity, authority, or existence to do so through a specific negative averment with supporting particulars.
Full Text of Rule 55.13
Amendment History
Adopted Jan. 19, 1973, eff. Sept. 1, 1973. Amended Sept. 28, 1993, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.
Official Comment
This is the same as prior Rule 55.15. Compare: Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plain-English Summary
Pleading capacity, representative authority, or a corporation’s legal existence doesn’t require detailed factual support up front — averring the ultimate fact is enough. That means a petition can state, without more, that a party has the capacity to sue, is suing in a representative capacity, or is a validly existing corporation or organized association.
Challenging one of those things is a different matter. A party who wants to raise an issue about legal existence, capacity, or representative authority has to do so through a specific negative averment, and that averment must include supporting particulars that are peculiarly within the challenger’s own knowledge. Once that specific challenge is raised, the burden of proof on the issue shifts to the opposite party — the party whose capacity, authority, or existence was put in issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I plead a corporation’s legal existence in Missouri?
By averring the ultimate fact of its existence — detailed supporting facts aren’t required at the pleading stage.
How do I challenge a plaintiff’s capacity to sue?
Through a specific negative averment that includes supporting particulars within your own knowledge, not a general denial.
What is a specific negative averment?
A denial that specifically identifies the capacity, authority, or existence issue being raised, backed by particulars the challenger is positioned to know.
Who has the burden of proof on a capacity challenge?
The opposite party — the party whose capacity, authority, or existence was challenged — bears the burden of proof on that issue once it’s specifically raised.
Can capacity be challenged with a general denial?
No. Rule 55.13 requires a specific negative averment with supporting particulars, not a general denial.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Missouri State & Federal Court Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Missouri. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: capacity to sue or be suedauthority to sue representative capacityspecific negative avermentcorporate existence pleadingchallenging legal capacity