Missouri’s new wholesaling disclosure law took effect on August 28, 2026. It is now the law of the state, not something on the horizon. If you wholesale residential real estate in Missouri, or you buy from wholesalers, this changes what you’re required to do starting with your very next deal.
The law is Senate Bill 973, sponsored by Senator Curtis Trent and signed into the truly agreed and finally passed bill text during the 103rd General Assembly. At a recent Buyers Club Live session, real estate attorney John Banjack of Banjack Law and True Title walked investors through exactly what the law requires, who it applies to, and what it doesn’t change. Here’s a breakdown of what he covered, updated with the bill’s official text and reporting from around the industry.
The law lives inside Missouri’s consumer protection statute
SB 973 codifies as Section 407.3600 RSMo, which places it inside Chapter 407 of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act (the MMPA). This is the same broad consumer protection statute the Missouri Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division uses to police unfair or deceptive business practices generally. That matters because a violation isn’t just a private contract dispute. It can be pursued two ways:
- By private citizens, who can sue for actual damages and, in willful violations, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
- By the Missouri Attorney General’s office, which has concurrent jurisdiction and can bring a civil action if it finds a violation occurred.
According to reporting from the Saint Louis Real Estate Lawyer blog, penalties tied to MMPA violations can include fines and out of pocket damages a consumer can show, and willful, knowing violations can theoretically trigger criminal exposure, though enforcement at that level tends to be reserved for the most egregious, intentional cases.
Who counts as a “wholesaler” under the law
The law only applies to residential real property, defined as property improved with a one to four unit dwelling. Raw land and commercial property aren’t covered.
Within that scope, a wholesaler is a person or entity that, for a fee, commission, or other valuable consideration (or the expectation of one), enters into a purchase contract for residential real property and then assigns or novates that contract to another party.
Two carve outs matter, and coverage from Mid America Association of Real Estate Investors (MAREI) confirms both:
- Assigning a contract to a relative within the third degree doesn’t trigger the law.
- Assigning to a subsidiary or commonly controlled affiliate, for example your own LLC, doesn’t trigger it either.
The 14 day disclosure requirement
If you meet the definition of a wholesaler and plan to assign a contract, you now have to provide the seller with a specific written disclosure, printed conspicuously, in boldface type no smaller than 12 points, at least 14 calendar days before entering into the purchase contract. It cannot be tucked into a small addendum, and the right to it cannot be waived.
The disclosure has to tell the seller, among other things:
- That the buyer is a wholesaler as defined by the statute, and that the seller is advised to seek legal counsel before signing anything.
- That the wholesaler intends to assign the contract to a third party for a fee, without needing the seller’s further consent.
- That the purchase price may be below fair market value, and that this is being conveyed voluntarily.
What happens if a wholesaler skips it? Reporting from Aureo Title’s analysis of SB 973 lays out the two stage consequence: before closing, the seller can cancel the contract penalty free and the wholesaler’s earnest money can go to the seller rather than being returned. After closing, the seller can pursue a civil claim under the MMPA for actual damages, and in willful cases, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
Does this ban double closings and flips?
No. This was one of the most discussed points on the call: back to back closings (Banjack’s term for what’s commonly called a double close or a flip) are not prohibited by the new law, regardless of whether the second closing happens the same day, two weeks later, or longer.
The key distinction is how the deal moves. The 14 day disclosure only applies to a wholesaler who assigns a contract without ever taking title. If you actually close on the property, taking and then conveying title yourself, you are not “wholesaling” in the sense the statute defines, even if you turn around and sell immediately afterward.
Banjack was careful to note this doesn’t look like an accidental gap in the law. He believes it reflects an intentional compromise that left the back to back closing structure open, even though it doesn’t fully solve the underlying concern the law is aimed at, which is protecting sellers from being pressured into below market sales. Industry coverage from St. Louis Real Estate News frames this the same way: the bill targets contract flipping specifically, not the double close structure itself.
What this means in practice for wholesalers and buyers
A few practical takeaways came out of the discussion, and they line up with what Kansas City Real Estate Lawyer’s writeup of SB 973 is telling their own clients:
- Wholesalers who plan to keep assigning contracts need the 14 day disclosure process built into their workflow now, with no shortcuts. Some title companies are also pulling back on same day (dry) funding for double closes, which raises the cost of that structure, so wholesalers should expect fees to rise and buyers should factor that into their numbers.
- Buyers working with wholesalers should ask what structure they’re using. If a wholesaler is taking title and then deeding the property to you, you’re on solid ground. If you’re stepping into their shoes through an assignment, you may want documentation confirming the 14 day disclosure was actually delivered and signed.
- Adding contract language, such as a right to attorney review clause and a disclosure that the purchase price may not reflect full market value, doesn’t replace compliance with the law, but several attorneys are recommending it as an added layer of protection and transparency, particularly for investors buying directly from consumers.
The leaseback disclosure: a second, separate rule
The same bill added a related but distinct requirement for leaseback transactions: deals where a seller sells their primary residence and stays in it afterward as a tenant, commonly called a sale leaseback.
For any leaseback, the buyer must:
- Provide the seller a written disclosure at least 14 calendar days before executing the leaseback agreement. It must state, in plain terms, that the seller no longer owns the home, could be subject to eviction, could lose the right to buy the home back, and that the arrangement may affect their credit and legal rights.
- Have that disclosure signed by both parties concurrently with the leaseback agreement, and provide a copy to the seller within five days.
- Wait 30 days after executing the leaseback agreement before any transfer of title can be recorded.
Stacked together, that’s a 44 day minimum runway on a leaseback deal, 14 days of disclosure plus a hard 30 day wait before title can move. A seller harmed by a violation can sue for actual damages, plus statutory damages of $10,000, attorney’s fees, and costs.
One nuance investors raised on the call: a short term possession after closing rider, common in standard SLAR and BAMSL contracts and used when a seller needs a few extra days to move out, is different from an actual leaseback where rent is being paid. Banjack’s read is that a brief, uncompensated courtesy period likely doesn’t trigger the leaseback law, but any arrangement that functions as a genuine lease, with the seller paying something close to fair market rent, should be treated as falling under the statute and handled accordingly.
Bottom line
The law doesn’t ban wholesaling or double closings, and it’s no longer a future date on the calendar. It’s active now. It adds a mandatory, non waivable disclosure and waiting period for assignment based wholesaling and for sale leasebacks, backed by real financial exposure if it’s ignored. Investors who structure deals as back to back closings, or who have already built the 14 day (and, for leasebacks, 30 day) disclosures into their process, should be able to keep operating largely as before, just with more paperwork and, in some cases, higher costs. If you haven’t updated your contracts and disclosure forms yet, treat that as overdue rather than upcoming.
This article summarizes a discussion with an attorney along with public bill text and industry reporting, and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Before changing your contracts or business practices, consult a licensed Missouri attorney about how this law applies to your specific situation.
