Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE · CHAPTER 2. VENUE · Part 1. Proper Place of Trial -- Venue
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121 (2026)

Contracts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 25
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 1
  5. 25-2-121 Contracts

TITLE 25. CIVIL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 2. VENUE

Part 1. Proper Place of Trial -- Venue

Contracts

25-2-121. Contracts. (1) The proper place of trial for actions upon contracts is either:

(a) the county in which the defendants, or any of them, reside at the commencement of the action; or

(b) the county in which the contract was to be performed. The county in which the contract was to be performed is:

(i) the county named in the contract as the place of performance; or

(ii) if no county is named in the contract as the place of performance, the county in which, by necessary implication from the terms of the contract, considering all of the obligations of all parties at the time of its execution, the principal activity was to take place.

(2) Subsections (2)(a) through (2)(d) do not constitute a complete list of classes of contracts; if, however, a contract belongs to one of the following classes, the proper county for such a contract for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii) is:

(a) contracts for the sale of property or goods: the county where possession of the property or goods is to be delivered;

(b) contracts of employment or for the performance of services: the county where the labor or services are to be performed;

(c) contracts of indemnity or insurance: the county where the loss or injury occurred or where a judgment is obtained against the assured or indemnitee or where payment is to be made by the insurer;

(d) contracts for construction or repair: the county where the object to be constructed or repaired is situated or is to be built.

History: En. Sec. 20, p. 46, Bannack Stat.; amd. Sec. 20, p. 138, L. 1867; en. Sec. 25, p. 31, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 59, p. 52, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 59, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 59, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 613, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6504, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9096, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 395; re-en. Sec. 9096, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2904(part); amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 432, L. 1985; sec. 25-2-101, MCA 1983; redes. 25-2-121 by Code Commissioner, 1985.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Whalen v. Montana Right to Life Ass'n, 2002 MT 328 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Whalen v. Montana Right to Life Ass'n, 2002 MT 328 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 30× “” The District Court also examined § 25-2-121, MCA, which dictates the proper venue for actions based upon a contract.”
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 56× “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
Sprinkle v. Burton, 935 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 22× “Accordingly, we conclude that on the facts of this case § 25-2-125, MCA, does not make Cascade County a permissible place of trial for the instant action against Dr.”
Deichl v. Savage, 2009 MT 293 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 18× “Section 25-2-121, MCA governs venue for contract actions and provides that the proper venue for a contract claim is either "(a) the county in which the defendants, or any of them, reside at the commencement of the action; or (b) the county in which the contract was to be…”
Schutz Foss Architects v. Campbell, 793 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 12× “) Section 25-2-121, MCA. The contract venue statute allows the plaintiff to elect alternate places for trial.”
Topco, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 912 P.2d 805 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 5× “Topeo filed this action in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County.”
Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Zerbe Bros., 2001 MT 162 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 23× “T&E maintains that possession of the goods took place in Yellowstone County, and therefore argues that Yellowstone County is a proper county in which to bring this action.”
Meyer v. Montana Power Co., 2005 MT 66 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 6× “¶15 In Whalen , a contract case, we reasoned that § 25-2-121, MCA, the venue statute for contract actions, more specifically addressed the facts pled therein than § 25-2-118(1), MCA, the venue statute for all civil actions, and, accordingly, we applied § 25-2-121, MCA.”
Leasing, Inc. v. Discovery Ski Corp., 765 P.2d 176 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 3× “However, in actions upon contracts, venue is governed by Section 25-2-121(b), MCA: The proper place of trial for actions upon contracts is: “.”
DML, INC. v. Fulbright, 2005 MT 204 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 8× “Section 25-2-121(1)(b), MCA, provides that a proper place for trial of an action based on contract is the county in which the contract was to be *97 performed.”
Berlin v. Boedecker, 767 P.2d 349 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 3× “Section 25-2-121(l)(b), MCA; Hardenburgh v.”
State Bank of Townsend v. Worline, 738 P.2d 1295 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 6× “The first issue which must be resolved when determining the proper county of trial for this action is whether the transaction falls under Section 25-2-121, MCA, or Section 25-2-123, MCA.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(1) — 10 cases
Whalen v. Montana Right to Life Ass'n, 2002 MT 328 (Mont. 2002). “” The District Court also examined § 25-2-121, MCA, which dictates the proper venue for actions based upon a contract.”
Deichl v. Savage, 2009 MT 293 (Mont. 2009). “Section 25-2-121, MCA governs venue for contract actions and provides that the proper venue for a contract claim is either "(a) the county in which the defendants, or any of them, reside at the commencement of the action; or (b) the county in which the contract was to be…”
Topco, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 912 P.2d 805 (Mont. 1996). “Topeo filed this action in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County.”
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
Schutz Foss Architects v. Campbell, 793 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1990). “) Section 25-2-121, MCA. The contract venue statute allows the plaintiff to elect alternate places for trial.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(1)(a) — 1 case
The Doctors Co. v. Finney, 2006 MT 44N (Mont. 2006).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(1)(b) — 3 cases
DML, INC. v. Fulbright, 2005 MT 204 (Mont. 2005). “Section 25-2-121(1)(b), MCA, provides that a proper place for trial of an action based on contract is the county in which the contract was to be *97 performed.”
Depee v. First Citizen S Bank of Bu, 852 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1993).
Madill (D. Mont. 2026).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(1)(b)(ii) — 3 cases
Schutz Foss Architects v. Campbell, 793 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1990). “) Section 25-2-121, MCA. The contract venue statute allows the plaintiff to elect alternate places for trial.”
Sprinkle v. Burton, 935 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1996). “Accordingly, we conclude that on the facts of this case § 25-2-125, MCA, does not make Cascade County a permissible place of trial for the instant action against Dr.”
Depee v. First Citizen S Bank of Bu, 852 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1993).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(1)(b)(n) — 1 case
Team Bank v. Meridian Oil Inc., 879 P.2d 779 (N.M. 1994).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(2) — 1 case
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(2)(a) — 3 cases
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Zerbe Bros., 2001 MT 162 (Mont. 2001). “T&E maintains that possession of the goods took place in Yellowstone County, and therefore argues that Yellowstone County is a proper county in which to bring this action.”
Depee v. First Citizen S Bank of Bu, 852 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1993).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(2)(b) — 2 cases
Sprinkle v. Burton, 935 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1996). “Accordingly, we conclude that on the facts of this case § 25-2-125, MCA, does not make Cascade County a permissible place of trial for the instant action against Dr.”
Farmers Union Ass'n v. Paquin, 2009 MT 305 (Mont. 2009).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(b) — 3 cases
Deichl v. Savage, 2009 MT 293 (Mont. 2009). “Section 25-2-121, MCA governs venue for contract actions and provides that the proper venue for a contract claim is either "(a) the county in which the defendants, or any of them, reside at the commencement of the action; or (b) the county in which the contract was to be…”
Leasing, Inc. v. Discovery Ski Corp., 765 P.2d 176 (Mont. 1988). “However, in actions upon contracts, venue is governed by Section 25-2-121(b), MCA: The proper place of trial for actions upon contracts is: “.”
Moran v. Jackson (Mont. 1995).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(l) — 1 case
Depee v. First Citizen S Bank of Bu, 852 P.2d 592 (Mont. 1993).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(l)(a) — 2 cases
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Zerbe Bros., 2001 MT 162 (Mont. 2001). “T&E maintains that possession of the goods took place in Yellowstone County, and therefore argues that Yellowstone County is a proper county in which to bring this action.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(l)(b) — 4 cases
Berlin v. Boedecker, 767 P.2d 349 (Mont. 1989). “Section 25-2-121(l)(b), MCA; Hardenburgh v.”
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
DML, INC. v. Fulbright, 2005 MT 204 (Mont. 2005). “Section 25-2-121(1)(b), MCA, provides that a proper place for trial of an action based on contract is the county in which the contract was to be *97 performed.”
Champion Int'l Corp. v. Bennett Forest Indus., Inc., 637 F. Supp. 170 (D. Mont. 1986).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(l)(b)(i) — 1 case
Schutz Foss Architects v. Campbell, 793 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1990). “) Section 25-2-121, MCA. The contract venue statute allows the plaintiff to elect alternate places for trial.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 25-2-121(l)(b)(ii) — 4 cases
Missouri-Stone Co. v. Barber Seed Serv., Inc., 844 P.2d 112 (Mont. 1992). “Montana’s venue statute for contract actions is Section 25-2-121, MCA. It provides generally that venue for contract actions is proper in either the county in which the defendant resides or the county in which the contract is to be performed.”
Sprinkle v. Burton, 935 P.2d 1094 (Mont. 1996). “Accordingly, we conclude that on the facts of this case § 25-2-125, MCA, does not make Cascade County a permissible place of trial for the instant action against Dr.”
Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Zerbe Bros., 2001 MT 162 (Mont. 2001). “T&E maintains that possession of the goods took place in Yellowstone County, and therefore argues that Yellowstone County is a proper county in which to bring this action.”
Hurly v. Studer, 761 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.