| House Bill | Proponents Summary | Opponents Summary | Status |
| HB 2103 (Amato) PROTECTIONS AGAINST DOCUMENT FRAUD | This bill will help prevent Missouri residents and deter individuals from committing fraud. This will strengthen notary laws. | There was no opposition voiced to the committee. | HCS Reported Do Pass (H) |
| HB 2423 (Oehlerking) DIVISION OF FINANCE | This bill will benefit the Department of Revenue by balancing out fee structure, maintaining costs and paying the Department’s employees. This bill does increase fees, but Missouri will still have one of the lowest fees in country. | Those in opposition say the fee increase is unfair for Missouri residents. They also say it makes achieving a License in Missouri even more difficult | Referred to Rules- Administrative |
| HB 2473 (Voss) SEPARATE BANK ESCROW ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY BROKERS | Supporters say that this is a common sense bill. There are benefits to home buyers and real estate agents. | No vocal opposition voiced to the committee. | Reported Do Pass (H) |
| HB 2636 (Owen) MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS | This bill will benefit businesses and consumers. The mortgage can continue in its priority no matter what attempts to alter it. | Opposition says it materially alters long standing Missouri property and recording principles. It increases borrower risk, cloud title and shift liability downstream. | Reported Do Pass (H) |
| HJR 159 (Thompson) THE STATE TREASURER’S ABILITY TO INVEST | Supporters state that this HJR is designed to modernize authority and investment portfolio of the State Treasurer. This HJR would allow the State Treasurer’s investments to yield higher returns. | There was no opposition voiced to committee in person. Online testimonies state it asks voters to amend the MO Constitution to expand State Treasurer’s investment authority beyond reasonable securities. | HCS Reported Do Pass (H) |
| HB 1870 (Lane) GARNISHMENTS | Potential Pros can include: Better protection for people financially vulnerable. Increases reflect modern day costs. This also aligns exemptions with inflation and fixes outdaded current limits (3k for household goods and a vehicle) | Potential Negatives can include Creditors receiving less debt. Higher exemptions limits may recover less even after winning a judgement. If creditors can expect reduced recovery options, they may: Tighten lending standards as well as increase interest rates. | (HCS IN BINDER) |
| HB 2116 (Owen) CONTRIBUTIONS TO QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS | This can encourage in-state education savings. By limiting the deduction of MO 529’s, it incentives to invest in Missouri administered education programs. This bill could also target tax benefits in a narrower field. | This bill is also potentially able to reduce flexibility for families who use out-of-state 529 plans, as they would lose the state tax benefits. This is a bill that could benefit higher income households more than middle class Missourians. Families who can contribute around 8-16k annually will be the highest earners. | Public Hearing Completed (H) |
| HB 2412 (Keathley) FOREIGN REMITTANCE TRANSFERS | Those in favor of this bill argue that it upholds law without broadly restricting legitimate commerce. By directing the Division of Finance to develop standardized documentation and forms, the bill gives licensees a defined processed framework. | Those against this bill argue that the language presented in the bill in accordance with “an unauthorized alien” imposes unreasonable federal law enforcement obligations on money transmission companies in Missouri. This directly harms Missouri businesses. | Referred: Financial Institutions |
| HB 2586 (Casteel) CREDIT UNIONS | Reduces the minimum par value from 25 to 1 dollar making it easier for lower income individuals to join a credit union. This will help bring in financial inclusion with the 1-dollar membership and increase competitiveness for other Missouri credit union for membership. | A higher par value encourages a sense of ownership and responsibility among members. Its online meetings can also raise issues as to how confidential or secure a person’s financial information may be. | Referred: Financial Institutions |
| HB 3107 (Oehlerking) WRITTEN GUIDANCE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS | Arguments to be made in favor for this bill: Clarification for regulated entities should not be punished for following the rules as they were explained at the time. It explicitly excludes protection for fraud, intentional misconduct, willful or wanton conduct and gross negligence. | Arguments to be made against this bill: Disputes around the language of “written guidance” and “good faith” arise such as, What qualifies as written guidance and whether the reliance was truly in good faith. This bill can also prioritize institutional protection over consumer accountability, particularly in highly regulated financial sectors. | Referred: Financial Institution |
Marty Joe Murray, Jr 