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. § 27-2-211 (2026)

Actions To Enforce Penalty Or Forfeiture Or Other Statutory Liability

✓ 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. 27-2-211 Actions to enforce penalty or forfeiture or other statutory liability

TITLE 27. CIVIL LIABILITY, REMEDIES, AND LIMITATIONS

CHAPTER 2. STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

Part 2. Time Limits on Specific Kinds of Actions

Actions To Enforce Penalty Or Forfeiture Or Other Statutory Liability

27-2-211. Actions to enforce penalty or forfeiture or other statutory liability. (1) Within 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon:

(a) a statute for a penalty or forfeiture when the action is given to an individual or to an individual and the state, except when the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation;

(b) a statute or an undertaking in a criminal action for a forfeiture or penalty to the state;

(c) a liability created by statute other than:

(i) a penalty or forfeiture; or

(ii) a statutory debt created by the payment of public assistance.

(2) The period prescribed for the commencement of an action by a municipal corporation for the violation of any city or town ordinance is within 1 year.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, actions against directors or stockholders of a corporation to recover a penalty or forfeiture imposed or to enforce a liability created by law must be brought within 3 years after the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts upon which the penalty of forfeiture attached or the liability was created.

(4) Unless fraud is involved or unless a support obligation has been entered, an action to enforce a statutory debt created by the payment of public assistance must be brought within 5 years from the date the debt arises. If fraud is involved, an action must be brought within 5 years of the discovery of the fraud. If a support obligation has been entered, an action must be brought within 10 years of the termination of the support obligation or within 10 years from entry of a lump-sum judgment or order for support arrears, whichever is later.

History: Ap. p. Sec. 515, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6448, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9032, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 340; re-en. Sec. 9032, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2606, R.C.M. 1947; 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. 516, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; amd. Sec. 1, p. 144, L. 1899; re-en. Sec. 6450, Rev. C. 1907; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 47, L. 1917; re-en. Sec. 9034, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 340; re-en. Sec. 9034, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2608, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 554, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6471, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9061, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 359; re-en. Sec. 9061, R.C.M. 1935; Sec. 93-2715, 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), 93-2606(1), (2), 93-2607(1), 93-2608(part), 93-2715; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 12, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 190, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 631, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 60, L. 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Royal Ins. v. Roadarmel, 2000 MT 259, 11 P.3d 105.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Royal Ins. v. Roadarmel, 2000 MT 259, 11 P.3d 105. · cites it 45× “¶ 15 Section 27-2-211, MCA, provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon .”
Barrett v. Holland & Hart, 845 P.2d 714 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 33× “In addition, we point out that even if this were construed as a liability created by statute other than a penalty or forfeiture, it still falls within the two-year limitation period as above quoted in § 27-2-211, MCA. We therefore affirm the holding of the District Court that Mr.”
Thiel v. Taurus Drilling Ltd. 1980-ii, 710 P.2d 33 (Mont. 1985). · cites it 15× “Section 27-2-211(1), MCA, provides: Within 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon: *38 (a) a statute for a penalty or forfeiture when the action is given to an individual or to an individual and the state, except when the statute imposing it…”
Christian v. Atl. Richfield Co., 2015 MT 255, 358 P.3d 131. · cites it 12× “Section 27-2-211, MCA. The District Court presumably reached this conclusion based on § 27-1-318, MCA, which provides the measure of damages to be applied in a case of wrongful occupation: The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real property in cases not otherwise…”
Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77, 957 P.2d 32. · cites it 10× “We agree with the District Court’s broad interpretation of liability in analyzing § 27-2-211, MCA, and determine that subsection (3), pertaining to directors and stockholders, applies to this case as the Minority Shareholders filed their complaint against Peter in his capacity…”
Marx v. Belgrade Volunteer Firefighters Relief Ass'n, 2008 MT 410, 198 P.3d 247. · cites it 23× “” ¶9 Based on the foregoing analysis, the District Court concluded the Association had established a valid statute of limitations defense under § 27-2-211(1)(c), MCA; that Marx had not met his burden as the party opposing summary judgment to show a genuine issue of material fact…”
Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc., 2013 MT 179, 305 P.3d 781. · cites it 9× “I do not believe it is the function of this Court to selectively resurrect stale claims when the plaintiffs here actually knew of the alleged wrongful act and concomitant injuries as early as 2002. ¶52 The Legislature has determined that the statutory period for bringing an…”
Haux v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2004 MT 233, 97 P.3d 540. · cites it 10× “(c) a liability created by statute other than: (i) a penalty or forfeiture; or (ii) a statutory debt created by the payment of public assistance.”
Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 MT 327, 80 P.3d 435. · cites it 6× “2d 1018, 1029 , this Court upheld, without analysis, the district court’s determination that the unit owners’ claim for unfair trade practices under § 30-14-133, MCA, was time barred by the statute of limitations set forth at § 27-2-211, MCA. That section provides, in relevant…”
Hein v. Sott Homes, 2015 MT 196, 353 P.3d 494. · cites it 9× “Whether the District Court erred in concluding that Hein’s *87 Consumer ProtectionAct claims arising fromthe2001 construction of his home and the subsequent inspections and repairs were barred by the statute of limitations, § 27-2-211, MCA; 3. Whether the District Court erred in…”
Jarvar v. Title Cash of Montana, Inc. (In Re Jarvar), 422 B.R. 242 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2009). · cites it 6× “Title Cash’s opposes Plaintiffs motion contending that there are genuine issues of material fact, and moves for summary judgment barring Plaintiffs CPA claim under the 2-year statute of limitations of MCA § 27-2-211(1). This Court has jurisdiction of this adversary proceeding…”
PPL Montana, LLC v. State, 2010 MT 64, 229 P.3d 421. · cites it 2× “” PPL claims that statutes of limitations regarding trespass (§ 27-2-207(1), MCA), negligence (§ 27-2-204(1), MCA), liability created by statute (§ 27-2-211(l)(c), MCA), and action not founded upon contract or promise (§ 27-2-202(3), MCA), variously apply to bar the State’s…”
Show all 54 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(1): 10 cases
Thiel v. Taurus Drilling Ltd. 1980-ii, 710 P.2d 33 (Mont. 1985). “Section 27-2-211(1), MCA, provides: Within 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon: *38 (a) a statute for a penalty or forfeiture when the action is given to an individual or to an individual and the state, except when the statute imposing it…”
Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77, 957 P.2d 32. “We agree with the District Court’s broad interpretation of liability in analyzing § 27-2-211, MCA, and determine that subsection (3), pertaining to directors and stockholders, applies to this case as the Minority Shareholders filed their complaint against Peter in his capacity…”
Jarvar v. Title Cash of Montana, Inc. (In Re Jarvar), 422 B.R. 242 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2009). “Title Cash’s opposes Plaintiffs motion contending that there are genuine issues of material fact, and moves for summary judgment barring Plaintiffs CPA claim under the 2-year statute of limitations of MCA § 27-2-211(1). This Court has jurisdiction of this adversary proceeding…”
Marx v. Belgrade Volunteer Firefighters Relief Ass'n, 2008 MT 410, 198 P.3d 247. “” ¶9 Based on the foregoing analysis, the District Court concluded the Association had established a valid statute of limitations defense under § 27-2-211(1)(c), MCA; that Marx had not met his burden as the party opposing summary judgment to show a genuine issue of material fact…”
Ritland v. Rowe, 861 P.2d 175 (Mont. 1993).
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(1)(a): 3 cases
Barrett v. Holland & Hart, 845 P.2d 714 (Mont. 1992). “In addition, we point out that even if this were construed as a liability created by statute other than a penalty or forfeiture, it still falls within the two-year limitation period as above quoted in § 27-2-211, MCA. We therefore affirm the holding of the District Court that Mr.”
Indep. Med. Supply, Inc. v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. Health & Human Servs., 2018 MT 57, 414 P.3d 781.
Indep. Med. v. DPHHS, 2018 MT 57.
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(1)(c): 15 cases
Royal Ins. v. Roadarmel, 2000 MT 259, 11 P.3d 105. “¶ 15 Section 27-2-211, MCA, provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon .”
Marx v. Belgrade Volunteer Firefighters Relief Ass'n, 2008 MT 410, 198 P.3d 247. “” ¶9 Based on the foregoing analysis, the District Court concluded the Association had established a valid statute of limitations defense under § 27-2-211(1)(c), MCA; that Marx had not met his burden as the party opposing summary judgment to show a genuine issue of material fact…”
Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc., 2013 MT 179, 305 P.3d 781. “I do not believe it is the function of this Court to selectively resurrect stale claims when the plaintiffs here actually knew of the alleged wrongful act and concomitant injuries as early as 2002. ¶52 The Legislature has determined that the statutory period for bringing an…”
Thiel v. Taurus Drilling Ltd. 1980-ii, 710 P.2d 33 (Mont. 1985). “Section 27-2-211(1), MCA, provides: Within 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon: *38 (a) a statute for a penalty or forfeiture when the action is given to an individual or to an individual and the state, except when the statute imposing it…”
Missoula Cnty. v. DOC, 2024 MT 98, 416 Mont. 340.
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(1)(c)(i): 1 case
Royal Ins. v. Roadarmel, 2000 MT 259, 11 P.3d 105. “¶ 15 Section 27-2-211, MCA, provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon .”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(3): 1 case
Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77, 957 P.2d 32. “We agree with the District Court’s broad interpretation of liability in analyzing § 27-2-211, MCA, and determine that subsection (3), pertaining to directors and stockholders, applies to this case as the Minority Shareholders filed their complaint against Peter in his capacity…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(4): 1 case
State, Dept. of Revenue v. Hubbard, 720 P.2d 1177 (Mont. 1986).
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(a): 1 case
Jarvar v. Title Cash of Montana, Inc. (In Re Jarvar), 422 B.R. 242 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2009). “Title Cash’s opposes Plaintiffs motion contending that there are genuine issues of material fact, and moves for summary judgment barring Plaintiffs CPA claim under the 2-year statute of limitations of MCA § 27-2-211(1). This Court has jurisdiction of this adversary proceeding…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(c): 1 case
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 633 P.2d 618 (Mont. 1981).
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(l)(a): 1 case
Barrett v. Holland & Hart, 845 P.2d 714 (Mont. 1992). “In addition, we point out that even if this were construed as a liability created by statute other than a penalty or forfeiture, it still falls within the two-year limitation period as above quoted in § 27-2-211, MCA. We therefore affirm the holding of the District Court that Mr.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(l)(c): 12 cases
Royal Ins. v. Roadarmel, 2000 MT 259, 11 P.3d 105. “¶ 15 Section 27-2-211, MCA, provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin 2 years is the period prescribed for the commencement of an action upon .”
Haux v. Montana Rail Link, Inc., 2004 MT 233, 97 P.3d 540. “(c) a liability created by statute other than: (i) a penalty or forfeiture; or (ii) a statutory debt created by the payment of public assistance.”
Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc., 2013 MT 179, 305 P.3d 781. “I do not believe it is the function of this Court to selectively resurrect stale claims when the plaintiffs here actually knew of the alleged wrongful act and concomitant injuries as early as 2002. ¶52 The Legislature has determined that the statutory period for bringing an…”
PPL Montana, LLC v. State, 2010 MT 64, 229 P.3d 421. “” PPL claims that statutes of limitations regarding trespass (§ 27-2-207(1), MCA), negligence (§ 27-2-204(1), MCA), liability created by statute (§ 27-2-211(l)(c), MCA), and action not founded upon contract or promise (§ 27-2-202(3), MCA), variously apply to bar the State’s…”
Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 MT 327, 80 P.3d 435. “2d 1018, 1029 , this Court upheld, without analysis, the district court’s determination that the unit owners’ claim for unfair trade practices under § 30-14-133, MCA, was time barred by the statute of limitations set forth at § 27-2-211, MCA. That section provides, in relevant…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-211(lXc): 1 case
Hein v. Sott Homes, 2015 MT 196, 353 P.3d 494. “Whether the District Court erred in concluding that Hein’s *87 Consumer ProtectionAct claims arising fromthe2001 construction of his home and the subsequent inspections and repairs were barred by the statute of limitations, § 27-2-211, MCA; 3. Whether the District Court erred in…”
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.