27-1-211. Right to interest. Each person who is entitled to recover damages certain or capable of being made certain by calculation and the right to recover that is vested in the person upon a particular day is entitled also to recover interest on the damages from that day except during the time that the debtor is prevented by law or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211 (2026)
Right To Interest
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS
CHAPTER 1. AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES -- LIABILITY
Part 2. Damages
Right To Interest
History: En. Sec. 4280, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6043, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 8662, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 3287; Field Civ. C. Sec. 1835; re-en. Sec. 8662, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 17-204; amd. Sec. 561, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Tipp v. Skjelset, 1998 MT 263 (Mont. 1998).
Tipp v. Skjelset, 1998 MT 263 (Mont. 1998). “Discussion ¶10 The first issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting postjudgment interest to Skjelset on the monetary judgment against TFB.”
Warrington v. G.F. Clinic, 2020 MT 174 (Mont. 2020). “” Section 27-1-211, MCA (enacted Mont. Civ.”
Montana Petroleum Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Crumleys, Inc., 2008 MT 2 (Mont. 2008). “Since the jury's award of administrative costs specifically included attorneys' fees and costs, any post-trial award of costs or fees would constitute an impermissible double recovery. ¶ 98 B.”
LHC, INC. v. Alvarez, 2007 MT 123 (Mont. 2007). “Did the court err in awarding prejudgment interest? ¶ 27 Alvarez argues that prejudgment interest is not appropriate under § 27-1-211, MCA, because the court rejected LHC's accounting and reduced the lien from $16,568 to $14,201.”
Ryffel Fam. P'ship Ltd. v. Alpine Country Constr., Inc., 2016 MT 350 (Mont. 2016). “Alpine filed a motion to amend the judgment for pre-judgment interest pursuant to § 27-1-211, MCA, which the District Court denied by allowing the motion to expire.”
Ehly v. Cady, 687 P.2d 687 (Mont. 1984). “As for Ehly's claim for interest, section 27-1-211, MCA, applies: "Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain or capable of being made certain by calculations and the right to which is vested in him upon a particular day is entitled also to recover interest thereon…”
Dew v. Dower, 852 P.2d 549 (Mont. 1993). “The Dowers further argue that the discretionary interest statute, § 27-1-212, MCA, does not give a court the authority to award prejudgment interest, unless the court can pinpoint a date from which the defendants owed and should have paid a sum certain to the plaintiffs.”
Tidyman's Manangement Servs. Inc. v. Davis, 2014 MT 205 (Mont. 2014). “Did the District Court err by awarding pre-judgment interest, or in its determination of when the interest began accruing? ¶52 Section 27-1-211, MCA, provides that “[e]ach person who is entitled to recover damages certain or capable of being made certain by calculation and the…”
Byrne v. Terry, 741 P.2d 1341 (Mont. 1987). “Co-personal representatives of the estate base their claim on Section 27-1-211, MCA, which reads: “Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain or capable of being made certain by calculation and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day is…”
Textana, Inc. v. Klabzuba Oil & Gas, 2009 MT 401 (Mont. 2009). “¶75 The District Court’s application of §27-1-214, MCA, fails to account for a party’s right to interest under §27-1-211, MCA. Section 27-1-211, MCA, provides that a party entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, also may recover…”
James Talcott Constr., Inc. v. P&D Land Enter., 2006 MT 188 (Mont. 2006). “Talcott argues that, in addition to the fact that the contract calls for prejudgment interest, § 27-1-211, MCA, and relevant case law also authorize such interest.”
Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2003 MT 357 (Mont. 2003). “Did the District Court err in not awarding William prejudgment interest on the $94,607 judgment and on the excess compensation taken by Otto from the various businesses both William and Otto owned? ¶65 William argues that he is entitled to prejudgment interest under § 27-1-211,…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-211(7)(b) — 1 case
Williams v. Global Fin. Servic, 2006 MT 9N (Mont. 2006).
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.