The court may require a party to furnish adequate security for anticipated costs. If the security for costs is not furnished as ordered, the court may dismiss the civil action or order other appropriate relief.
Rule 77.02.Security for Costs.
Part I · Rule 77: Costs · Last amended January 1, 1981 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceRule 77.02 lets a Missouri court require a party to post adequate security for costs the court expects the case will generate, and allows the court to dismiss the action or grant other relief if that security is not provided.
Full Text of Rule 77.02
Amendment History
Adopted June 5, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981.
Official Comment
The source is prior Rules 77.01 and 77.02. The references to certain types of actions in which security for costs is required have been deleted because the type of action might be a factor to be considered by the court in exercising its discretion to require security for costs but it should not be the sole determining factor. The reference to nonresidence of a plaintiff was deleted because it is just one of the factors to be considered by the court in ordering that security for costs be given. It should not be required that a nonresident receive different treatment than a resident when bringing a suit in the courts of this state.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 77.02 gives a trial court a tool to protect the eventual winner's ability to collect costs. Instead of waiting until the end of the case to find out that a party cannot pay, the court can order that party to put up security for costs while the case is still pending.
The rule leaves the decision to the court's discretion. It does not list specific categories of cases or specific classes of litigants who must post security. The official comment to this rule explains that earlier versions singled out certain case types and nonresident plaintiffs, and that those categorical triggers were removed. The type of case and a party's residency can still factor into the court's judgment call, but neither one by itself forces the requirement, and a nonresident does not have to satisfy a different standard than a resident bringing the same type of suit.
If the court orders security and the party does not furnish it, the rule gives the court two options: dismiss the civil action, or order some other appropriate relief short of dismissal. That flexibility lets the court tailor the consequence to the situation instead of being forced into an all-or-nothing outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can be ordered to post security for costs?
Either party can be required to furnish adequate security for anticipated costs; the rule does not limit the requirement to plaintiffs or to any particular category of case.
Does filing suit as a nonresident automatically trigger this rule?
No. The rule's history notes that residency is only one factor a court may weigh, not an automatic trigger, so a nonresident is not held to a different standard than a resident.
What happens if the ordered security is not provided?
The court may dismiss the civil action or order other appropriate relief — the rule gives the court discretion instead of mandating dismissal in every case.
Is there a fixed dollar amount the rule requires?
No. The rule speaks only of 'adequate security for anticipated costs,' leaving the amount and form to the court's judgment based on the case before it.
Does this rule apply to counterclaims or third-party claims?
The rule applies to 'a party,' language broad enough to reach any party pursuing a claim in the action, not solely the original plaintiff.
How does this rule relate to Rule 77.03?
Rule 77.03 provides the counterpoint: a poor person may proceed without a cost deposit or security, which limits how Rule 77.02 can be applied against someone who qualifies.
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: security for costscost bondposting security lawsuitnonresident plaintiff securitydismissal for failure to post securityMissouri Rule 77.02