40-2-101. Mutual obligations of husband and wife. Husband and wife contract toward each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-2-101 (2026)
Mutual Obligations Of Husband And Wife
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW
CHAPTER 2. HUSBAND AND WIFE
Part 1. Joint Interests, Obligations, and Powers
Mutual Obligations Of Husband And Wife
History: En. Sec. 210, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3690, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 5782, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 155; Field Civ. C. Sec. 75; re-en. Sec. 5782, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 36-101.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: North Pac. Ins. v. Stucky, 2014 MT 299 (Mont. 2014).
North Pac. Ins. v. Stucky, 2014 MT 299 (Mont. 2014). “In Bain, we determined that the husband of an injured wife could bring a loss of consortium claim “separate and distinct” from the wife’s claim against the tortfeasor and that the basis for such a claim was the statutory contractual obligation between husband and wife, set forth…”
Pence v. Fox, 813 P.2d 429 (Mont. 1991). “Section 40-2-101, MCA. We further agree with the court in Button, supra, that consortium includes a legal right to the aid, protection, affection and society of the other spouse.”
Bain v. Gleason, 726 P.2d 1153 (Mont. 1986). “Section 40-2-101, MCA. We further agree with the court in Dutton, supra, that consortium includes a legal right to the aid, protection, affection and society of the other spouse.”
Priest v. Taylor, 740 P.2d 648 (Mont. 1987). “This Court recently agreed that “[a] cause of action for consortium of the deprived spouse is separate and distinct from the claim of the injured spouse and that the basis for a consortium claim lies in the Montana statutes in which the husband and wife contract for obligations…”
Donaldson v. State, 2012 MT 288 (Mont. 2012). “Code § 720 ; § 40-2-101, MCA. “[T]he primacy of the husband as the legal and economic representative of the couple, and the protector and provider for his wife, was seen as absolutely essential to what marriage was” in the nineteenth century.”
Gunning v. Gen. Motors Corp., 779 P.2d 64 (Mont. 1989). “Section 40-2-101, MCA. Thus, a woman by her marriage obtains a contractual right to consortium.”
In Re Gress, 257 B.R. 563 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2000). “While § 521(1) requires a debtor to file a schedule of current income, and the official form for Schedule I requires a spouse’s income, neither by itself requires the inclusion of a nondebtor’s income who is not a debtor’s spouse. Wood did not affirmatively act to legally…”
In Re Jordan, 226 B.R. 117 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1998). “Since David is not the Debtor’s husband, he has no duty to support the Debtor as his wife pursuant to Mont.Code Ann. §§ 40-2-101 & 102 7 . David did not appear’ and testify and commit himself to giving the Debtor $1,100 per month.”
Donaldson v. State of Montana, 2012 MT 288 (Mont. 2012). “Code § 720 ; § 40-2-101, MCA. “[T]he primacy of the husband as the legal and economic representative of the couple, and the protector and provider for his wife, was seen as absolutely essential to what marriage was” in the nineteenth century.”
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.