Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 26. EVIDENCE · CHAPTER 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE · Part 6. Presumptions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602 (2026)

Disputable Presumptions

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 26
  3. CHAPTER 1
  4. Part 6
  5. 26-1-602 Disputable presumptions

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE

Part 6. Presumptions

Disputable Presumptions

26-1-602. Disputable presumptions. All other presumptions are "disputable presumptions" and may be controverted by other evidence. The following are of that kind:

(1) A person is innocent of crime or wrong.

(2) An unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.

(3) A person intends the ordinary consequence of the person's voluntary act.

(4) A person takes ordinary care of the person's own concerns.

(5) Evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

(6) More satisfactory evidence would be adverse if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered and it is within the power of the party to offer more satisfactory evidence.

(7) Money paid by one to another was due the latter.

(8) A thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter.

(9) When the instrument evidencing an obligation has been delivered to the debtor, the obligation has been paid.

(10) Prior rent or installments have been paid when a receipt for later rent or installments is produced.

(11) Things that a person possesses are owned by the person.

(12) A person is the owner of property if the person exercises acts of ownership over it or there is common reputation of the person's ownership.

(13) A person in possession of an order on the person for the payment of money or the delivery of a thing has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly.

(14) A person acting in a public office was regularly appointed to it.

(15) Official duty has been regularly performed.

(16) A court or judge acting as such, whether in this state or any other state or country, was acting in the lawful exercise of the court's or judge's jurisdiction.

(17) A judicial record, when not conclusive, does still correctly determine or set forth the rights of the parties.

(18) All matters within an issue were laid before the jury and passed upon by them, and in like manner, all matters within a submission to arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them.

(19) Private transactions have been fair and regular.

(20) The ordinary course of business has been followed.

(21) A promissory note or bill of exchange was given or endorsed for a sufficient consideration.

(22) An endorsement of a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange was made at the time and place of making the note or bill.

(23) A writing is truly dated.

(24) A letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.

(25) There is an identity of persons when there is an identity of names.

(26) A person not heard from in 5 years is dead.

(27) Acquiescence followed from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the right or fact.

(28) Things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

(29) Persons acting as partners have entered into a contract of partnership.

(30) A man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

(31) A child born in lawful wedlock is legitimate.

(32) A thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of that nature.

(33) The law has been obeyed.

(34) A printed and published book purporting to be printed or published by public authority was so printed or published.

(35) A printed and published book purporting to contain reports of cases adjudged in the tribunals of the state or country where the book is published contains correct reports of such cases.

(36) A trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed the property to the particular person. This presumption applies when it is necessary to perfect the title of the person or the person's successor in interest.

(37) When there has been uninterrupted use by the public of land for a burial ground for 5 years, with the consent of the owner and without a reservation of rights, the owner intended to dedicate it to the public for that purpose.

(38) There was a good and sufficient consideration for a written contract.

History: En. Sec. 3266, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 7962, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 10606, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1963; re-en. Sec. 10606, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 20, L. 1951; R.C.M. 1947, 93-1301-7; amd. Sec. 12, Ch. 72, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 41, Ch. 18, L. 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Baldwin v. Bd. of Chiropractors, 2003 MT 306, 79 P.3d 810.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baldwin v. Bd. of Chiropractors, 2003 MT 306, 79 P.3d 810. · cites it 18× “Baldwin mailed her renewal packet on August 17, 1998, as she claims she did; the Board simply asserts it did not receive the packet.”
State Ex Rel. State Comp. Mut. Ins. Fund v. Berg, 927 P.2d 975 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 14× “The language of § 26-1-602, MCA, which addresses disputable presumptions, is markedly different.”
State v. Morgan, 646 P.2d 1177 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 12× “The dissent suggests that only the legislature can provide guidelines for restitution, and that any district court judgment imposing restitution is protected by the disputable presumptions contained in section 26-1-602, MCA. Subsection 15 of this statute provides a disputable…”
City of Great Falls v. Morris, 2006 MT 93, 134 P.3d 692. · cites it 6× “The District Court rejected this argument on the grounds that Morris failed to cite authority “other than his stretched construction of § 26-1-602, MCA.” ¶27 On appeal, Morris again fails to provide any legal authority in support of his argument.”
Snetsinger v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2004 MT 390, 104 P.3d 445. · cites it 4× “Further, the burden of proof is made lighter by § 26-1-602(30), MCA, which establishes a presumption that “[a] man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.”
Barnett v. Hunsaker, 1998 MT 279, 968 P.2d 281. · cites it 9× “There is a file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-569%20(11-17-98)%20Opinion.htm (7 of 15)4/20/2007 10:44:56 AM No disputable presumption that "[a] man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.”
In Re the Marriage of Gerhart, 2003 MT 292, 78 P.3d 1219. · cites it 4× “Section 26-1-601, MCA, sets forth a list of conclusive presumptions, including “any other presumption, which, by statute, is expressly made conclusive,” while § 26-1-602, MCA, provides that all other presumptions are disputable and may be controverted by other evidence.”
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 217 P.3d 475. · cites it 4× “The State relied on the presumption contained in § 26-1-602(15), MCA ("[o]fficial duty has been regularly performed") and also listed certain actions it had taken to enforce § § 16-11-401 to -404, MCA.”
Matthews v. Don K Chevrolet, 2005 MT 164, 115 P.3d 201. · cites it 4× “…in the District Court to dispute the presumption that the letter and notice mailed to its counsel were received. See § 26-1-602(24), MCA.”
Shupert v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 696 P.2d 436 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 6× “' Section 26-1-602(32), MCA." 608 P.2d at 1069 .”
Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 424 P.3d 571. · cites it 2× “t offered by a promisor to another, or a promisor's offer to suffer a detriment to the other; (2) offered by the promisor in exchange for or to induce a reciprocal benefit from or detriment suffered by the other; and (3) the offered exchange or inducement involves a benefit to…”
Ashby v. Maechling, 2010 MT 80, 229 P.3d 1210. · cites it 6× “Section 26-1-602(5), MCA. Discrepancies in the description or location of a road in old county documents are not sufficient to turn a county road into private property.”
Show all 55 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(11): 1 case
William Baltrusch v. Otto Baltrusch, 2008 MT 245, 190 P.3d 1034.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(15): 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 217 P.3d 475. “The State relied on the presumption contained in § 26-1-602(15), MCA ("[o]fficial duty has been regularly performed") and also listed certain actions it had taken to enforce § § 16-11-401 to -404, MCA.”
State v. Morgan, 646 P.2d 1177 (Mont. 1982). “The dissent suggests that only the legislature can provide guidelines for restitution, and that any district court judgment imposing restitution is protected by the disputable presumptions contained in section 26-1-602, MCA. Subsection 15 of this statute provides a disputable…”
Reid v. Park Cnty., 627 P.2d 1210 (Mont. 1981).
City of Billings v. Cnty. Water Dist., 935 P.2d 246 (Mont. 1997).
Oates v. Knutson, 595 P.2d 1181 (Mont. 1979).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(17): 1 case
State v. Nelson, 822 P.2d 1086 (Mont. 1991).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(20): 2 cases
New Hope Lutheran Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, Inc., 2014 MT 69, 328 P.3d 586.
Adoption of A.K.M. & R.J.M., 2025 MT 212, 575 P.3d 1008.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(20)(24): 1 case
Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Zerbe Bros., Inc., 672 P.2d 1109 (Mont. 1983).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(21): 1 case
Env't Contractors, LLC v. Moon, 1999 MT 178, 983 P.2d 390.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(24): 9 cases
Baldwin v. Bd. of Chiropractors, 2003 MT 306, 79 P.3d 810. “Baldwin mailed her renewal packet on August 17, 1998, as she claims she did; the Board simply asserts it did not receive the packet.”
Matthews v. Don K Chevrolet, 2005 MT 164, 115 P.3d 201. “…in the District Court to dispute the presumption that the letter and notice mailed to its counsel were received. See § 26-1-602(24), MCA.”
Kenyon-Noble Lumber Co. v. Dependant Foundations, Inc., 2018 MT 308, 432 P.3d 133.
City of Kalispell v. Omyer Athy, 2016 MT 63, 368 P.3d 1165.
Griz One v. State DOLI, 2020 MT 285, 475 P.3d 739.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(26): 1 case
Matter of Montana Pac. Oil & Gas Co., 614 P.2d 1045 (Mont. 1980).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(30): 10 cases
Snetsinger v. Montana Univ. Sys., 2004 MT 390, 104 P.3d 445. “Further, the burden of proof is made lighter by § 26-1-602(30), MCA, which establishes a presumption that “[a] man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.”
Barnett v. Hunsaker, 1998 MT 279, 968 P.2d 281. “There is a file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-569%20(11-17-98)%20Opinion.htm (7 of 15)4/20/2007 10:44:56 AM No disputable presumption that "[a] man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.”
Matter of Est. of Murnion, 686 P.2d 893 (Mont. 1984).
In Re the Marriage of Geertz, 755 P.2d 34 (Mont. 1988).
In Re the Marriage of Swanner-Renner, 2009 MT 186, 209 P.3d 238.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(31): 1 case
In Re the Marriage of K.E.V., 883 P.2d 1246 (Mont. 1994).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(32): 2 cases
Shupert v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 696 P.2d 436 (Mont. 1985). “' Section 26-1-602(32), MCA." 608 P.2d at 1069 .”
Hume v. St. Regis Paper Co., 608 P.2d 1063 (Mont. 1980).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(38): 2 cases
Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 424 P.3d 571. “t offered by a promisor to another, or a promisor's offer to suffer a detriment to the other; (2) offered by the promisor in exchange for or to induce a reciprocal benefit from or detriment suffered by the other; and (3) the offered exchange or inducement involves a benefit to…”
Wright v. Blevins, 705 P.2d 113 (Mont. 1985).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(4): 1 case
Weinheimer Ranch, Inc. v. Pospisil, 2013 MT 87, 299 P.3d 327.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(5): 2 cases
Ashby v. Maechling, 2010 MT 80, 229 P.3d 1210. “Section 26-1-602(5), MCA. Discrepancies in the description or location of a road in old county documents are not sufficient to turn a county road into private property.”
State v. Morris, 749 P.2d 1379 (Mont. 1988).
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(6): 4 cases
City of Great Falls v. Morris, 2006 MT 93, 134 P.3d 692. “The District Court rejected this argument on the grounds that Morris failed to cite authority “other than his stretched construction of § 26-1-602, MCA.” ¶27 On appeal, Morris again fails to provide any legal authority in support of his argument.”
Adams v. Allen, 679 P.2d 1232 (Mont. 1984).
In re J.G., 2004 MT 104, 89 P.3d 11.
Matter of J.G., 2004 MT 104.
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(7): 1 case
Local Union No. 400 of the Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Bosh, 715 P.2d 36 (Mont. 1986).
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.