28-2-708. Restraints upon legal proceedings void. Every stipulation or condition in a contract by which any party to the contract is restricted from enforcing the party's rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals or that limits the time within which the party may enforce the party's rights is void. This section does not affect the validity of an agreement enforceable under Title 27, chapter 5.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-708 (2026)
Restraints Upon Legal Proceedings Void
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS
Part 7. Illegal Objects and Provisions
Restraints Upon Legal Proceedings Void
History: En. Sec. 2245, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5056, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7558, R.C.M. 1921; Field Civ. C. Sec. 832; re-en. Sec. 7558, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-806; amd. Sec. 24, Ch. 684, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 782, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Keystone, Inc. v. Triad Sys. Corp., 1998 MT 326 (Mont. 1998).
Keystone, Inc. v. Triad Sys. Corp., 1998 MT 326 (Mont. 1998). “¶2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the contract provision which requires arbitration in California is void because it violates § 28-2-708, MCA, or § 27-5-323, MCA. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶3 Triad Systems Corporation is a California corporation engaged in the sale of computer…”
Rindal v. Seckler Co. Inc., 786 F. Supp. 890 (D. Mont. 1992). “In the event of any action to enforce this agreement, the parties consent and agree to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the District Court of the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado. Defendants assert plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because the proper venue…”
State Ex Rel. Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Dist. Court of the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 695 P.2d 471 (Mont. 1985). “Midland asserted that § 28-2-708, MCA renders the forum-selection clause void.”
Gemini Tech., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2019). “See Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-708 ; N.D. Cent. Code Ann.”
Garretson v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 761 P.2d 1288 (Mont. 1988). “Although the policy does not specifically provide that the parties are bound by the process, the wording indicates the appraisal process is intended to generate a valuation which is final and binding.”
Chor v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc., 862 P.2d 26 (Mont. 1993). “The public policy in Montana is clearly set forth at § 28-2-708, MCA, where it provides that: Every stipulation or condition in a contract by which any party thereto is restricted from enforcing his rights under the contract by the usual proceedings in the ordinary tribunals or…”
State Ex Rel. Farm Credit Bank v. Dist. Court of the Third Jud. Dist., 881 P.2d 594 (Mont. 1994). “st concluded that the contractual provision incorporating the Farm Credit Act by reference does allow the provisions of the Act to be enforced in court, and to the extent that that same reference incorporated procedural limitations from the Act which precluded access to court,…”
Rattler Holdings, LLC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (D. Mont. 2020). “” Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-708 (emphasis added).”
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nw. Corp. (D. Mont. 2022). “Keystone then pointed to the more general provisions of Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-708 ,3 which had “been applied to invalidate forum selection clauses that would have the effect of forcing Montana residents to litigate disputes outside of Montana.”
Swank Enter., Inc. v. NGM Ins. Co. (D. Mont. 2020). “” Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-708 . Nonetheless, less than two years ago, this Court, looking to the Montana Supreme Court’s interpretation of § 28-2-708, determined that “[e]nforcement of the forum-selection clauses in [the agreements at issue] would .”
Chambers v. Montana Contractors Ass'n Health Care Trust, 797 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (D. Mont. 2009). “This attempt to limit an ERISA plan’s ability to impose a limitations period on its claimants conflicts with the body of federal common law discussed above that permits parties to contractually agree to a limitations period in an ERISA plan.”
First Sec. Bank v. Ranch Recovery Ltd. Liab. Co., 1999 MT 43 (Mont. 1999). “It contends that a mortgagee of a vendee’s interest in a contract for deed cannot obtain a lien superior to the vendor’s interest, absent an assignment or mortgage of the vendor’s interest, and that the purported subordination language of the agreement violates § 28-2-708, MCA.…”
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.