Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS · CHAPTER 2. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS · Part 2. Time Limits on Specific Kinds of Actions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-203 (2026)

Actions For Relief On Ground Of Fraud Or Mistake

✓ 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 27
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 27-2-203 Actions for relief on ground of fraud or mistake

TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS

CHAPTER 2. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

Part 2. Time Limits on Specific Kinds of Actions

Actions For Relief On Ground Of Fraud Or Mistake

27-2-203. Actions for relief on ground of fraud or mistake. The period prescribed for the commencement of an action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake is within 2 years, the cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

History: Ap. p. Sec. 1, p. 50, L. 1893; re-en. Sec. 524, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 128, L. 1903; re-en. Sec. 6449, Rev. C. 1907; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 47, L. 1917; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 172, L. 1921; re-en. Sec. 9033, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 338; re-en. Sec. 9033, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 423, L. 1975; Sec. 93-2607, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 510, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6443, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 335; re-en. Sec. 9027, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2601, R.C.M. 1947; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2601(part), 93-2607(4).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Johnson v. Dist. VII, 2009 MT 86, 204 P.3d 714.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Dist. VII, 2009 MT 86, 204 P.3d 714. · cites it 70× “" The court determined that justice required it to treat HRDC's mutual mistake counterclaim as an affirmative defense to avoid applying the two-year statute of limitations set forth in § 27-2-203, MCA, to HRDC's mutual mistake counterclaim.”
Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2015 MT 255, 358 P.3d 131. · cites it 18× “¶14 Before addressing these exceptions, we note the following statutes of limitations applicable to Appellants’ claims: For an action based on fraud, including constructive 9 fraud, two years, § 27-2-203, MCA; Deschamps v. Treasure State Trailer Court, Ltd.”
Preston v. Transp. Ins., 2004 MT 339, 102 P.3d 527. · cites it 38× “¶ 17 After a hearing, the Workers' Compensation Court determined that there existed a mutual mistake of fact between Preston and Transportation regarding the severity of Preston's mental illness as a result of her industrial accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Court…”
Tynes v. Bankers Life Co., 730 P.2d 1115 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 11× “Thus, Bankers Life argued correctly that a cause of action premised on constructive fraud is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. However, Tynes did not plead constructive fraud.”
Turley v. Turley, 649 P.2d 434 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 30× “A necessary part of appellant's contention as to whether fraud is present should include a discussion of the applicability of the statute of limitations on fraud, section 27-2-203, MCA. The trial court concluded, and we agree, that section 27-2-203, MCA, as applied here, bars…”
Hawkins v. Harney, 2003 MT 58, 66 P.3d 305. · cites it 8× “¶41 Section 27-2-203, MCA (1991), addresses actions for relief on grounds of fraud.”
Cartwright v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 914 P.2d 976 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 9× “They contend that the three-year statute of limitations found at § 27-2-204(1), MCA, applies to the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and that the two-year statute of limitations found at § 27-2-203, MCA, applies to the claims for negligent…”
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Clark, 2001 MT 45, 20 P.3d 780. · cites it 8× “653, 658 (action for “creditors’ bill”), and § 27-2-203, MCA, which provides statute of limitation for fraud).”
White v. Lobdell, 678 P.2d 637 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 12× “III Ponderosa next contends that the statute of limitations bars appellants from pursuing this action against the Paynes.”
Rouse v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 817 P.2d 690 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 14× “Rouse's claims *691 were barred by the statute of limitations set forth in § 27-2-203, MCA? The incidents giving rise to the allegations in Rouse's complaint occurred on October 25, 1984.”
Gregory v. City of Forsyth, 609 P.2d 248 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 12× “1947, now section 27-2-203, MCA, barred plaintiff’s claim and that the disputed land was annexed to the City of Forsyth by acquiescence.”
Castillo v. Franks, 690 P.2d 425 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 9× “STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Section 27-2-203, MCA, provides: “The period prescribed for the commencement of an action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake is within two years, the cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the…”
Show all 91 citing cases →
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.