Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW · CHAPTER 4. TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE, CHILD CUSTODY, SUPPORT · Part 2. Support, Custody, Visitation, and Related Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208 (2026)

Modification And Termination Of Provisions For Maintenance, Support, And Property Disposition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 40
  3. CHAPTER 4
  4. Part 2
  5. 40-4-208 Modification and termination of provisions for maintenance, support, and property disposition

TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW

CHAPTER 4. TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE, CHILD CUSTODY, SUPPORT

Part 2. Support, Custody, Visitation, and Related Provisions

Modification And Termination Of Provisions For Maintenance, Support, And Property Disposition

40-4-208. Modification and termination of provisions for maintenance, support, and property disposition. (1) Except as otherwise provided in 40-4-201(6), a decree may be modified by a court as to maintenance or support only as to installments accruing subsequent to actual notice to the parties of the motion for modification.

(2) (a) Except as provided in 40-4-251 through 40-4-258, whenever the decree proposed for modification does not contain provisions relating to maintenance or support, modification under subsection (1) may only be made within 2 years of the date of the decree.

(b) Except as provided in 40-4-251 through 40-4-258, whenever the decree proposed for modification contains provisions relating to maintenance or support, modification under subsection (1) may only be made:

(i) upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable;

(ii) upon written consent of the parties; or

(iii) upon application by the department of public health and human services, whenever the department of public health and human services is providing services under Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act. The support obligation must be modified, as appropriate, in accordance with the guidelines promulgated under 40-5-209. Except as provided in 40-4-251 through 40-4-258, a modification under this subsection may not be made within 12 months after the establishment of the order or the most recent modification.

(c) The nonexistence of a medical support order, as defined in 40-5-804, or a violation of a medical support order justifies an immediate modification of child support in order to:

(i) provide for the actual or anticipated costs of the child's medical care;

(ii) provide or maintain a health benefit plan or individual health insurance coverage for the child; or

(iii) eliminate any credit for a medical support obligation when it has been permitted or used as a credit in the determination of the child support obligation.

(3) The provisions as to property disposition may not be revoked or modified by a court except:

(a) upon written consent of the parties; or

(b) if the court finds the existence of conditions that justify the reopening of a judgment under the laws of this state.

(4) Unless otherwise agreed in writing or expressly provided in the decree, the obligation to pay future maintenance is terminated upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the party receiving maintenance.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6), provisions for the support of a child are terminated by emancipation of the child or the child's graduation from high school if the child is enrolled in high school, whichever occurs later, but in no event later than the child's 19th birthday, unless the termination date is extended or knowingly waived by written agreement or by an express provision of the decree.

(6) (a) Provisions for the support of a child who has not been emancipated by the court are not terminated solely on the basis of the child's age if the child has a disability that causes the child to be financially dependent on the custodial parent and the custodial parent is the child's primary caregiver.

(b) The obligation to pay child support for the individual with a disability continues until the court finds that the individual is no longer disabled or is no longer financially dependent on the custodial parent if:

(i) the decree ordering provisions for the support of a child is issued on or after July 1, 2019; or

(ii) the decree ordering provisions for the support of a child is already in effect on July 1, 2019, and has not been terminated.

(c) If a decree ordering provisions for the support of a child has been terminated prior to July 1, 2019, on the basis that the individual with a disability has turned 19 years of age but the individual remains financially dependent on the custodial parent and the custodial parent continues to serve as the individual's primary caregiver, the custodial parent may petition the court to issue a new child support order or reinstate the terminated child support order until the court finds that the individual is no longer disabled or is no longer financially dependent on the custodial parent.

(d) In assessing the amount of the continuing financial obligation of the noncustodial parent under this subsection (6), the court shall consider the child's eligibility for public benefits and services and other factors enumerated in this section.

(7) Provisions for the support of a child do not terminate upon the death of a parent obligated to support the child. When a parent obligated to pay support dies, the amount of support may be modified, revoked, or commuted to a lump-sum payment, to the extent just and appropriate in the circumstances.

(8) The decree may be modified, as provided in 40-4-251 through 40-4-258, for failure to disclose assets and liabilities.

History: En. 48-330 by Sec. 30, Ch. 536, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 48-330; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 464, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 212, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 27, Ch. 549, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 28, Ch. 702, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 342, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 28, Ch. 504, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 120, Ch. 546, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 326, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 368, L. 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 236 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Winters v. Winters, 2004 MT 82 (Mont. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marriage of Winters v. Winters, 2004 MT 82 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 60× “Did the District Court violate § 40-4-208, MCA, when it ordered a deferred payment plan for past due child support and past due medical support? ¶4 2.”
In Re Marriage of DeCosse, 936 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 28× “Section 40-4-208, MCA, provides that a district court may, in certain instances, order a modification of a maintenance provision in a decree of dissolution.”
Marriage of Florian & Charlene Co, 2008 MT 28 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 38× “1 For example, in the present case, if Florian had petitioned to modify his maintenance obligation as it somehow became unconscionable, a possibility provided for by § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA, the Court would not have the authority to grant 6 ¶16 I dissent.”
In Re the Marriage of Cook, 725 P.2d 562 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 33× “Further, the changes in the children's residences represented changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make enforcement of James' original and modified support obligation unconscionable.”
In Re the Marriage of Gingerich, 887 P.2d 714 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 30× “The change in the parties' incomes in this case is not a sufficient basis to warrant modification of the Decree.”
Mooney v. Brennan, 848 P.2d 1020 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 22× “Subsection (2)(b)(i), which is applicable to the facts presented here, reads: (b) Whenever the decree proposed for modification contains provisions relating to .”
In Re the Marriage of Craib, 880 P.2d 1379 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 20× “If anything his ability to pay child support was only temporarily changed and a temporary change in circumstances is not sufficient to justify modification of child support.”
In Re the Marriage of Jarussi, 1998 MT 272 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 35× “DISCUSSION ¶5 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in modifying Gene’s child support obligation pursuant to § 40-4-208(2)(b), MCA? ¶6 Section 40-4-208, MCA, governs modification of child support provisions in a dissolution decree.”
In Re the Marriage of Durbin, 823 P.2d 243 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 18× “I do not agree that § 40-4-208, MCA, requires the majority's conclusion.”
In Re the Marriage of Clyatt, 882 P.2d 503 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 22× “The District Court made no specific findings regarding a change in circumstances or the conscionability of Eugene's child support obligation — the factors to be considered under § 40-4-208, MCA. However, in the court's later opinion and order denying Eugene's motions for…”
In Re the Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 20× “Did the District Court err in modifying its original maintenance award, granting Jennifer future maintenance? ¶33 Peter next takes issue with the District Court’s modification of the maintenance award, arguing that the court erred in failing to make the required findings of…”
Rausch v. Hogan, 2001 MT 123 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 12× “Was retrial of the marital equities barred by collateral estoppel, res judicata, judicial estoppel, and § 40-4-208, MCA? ¶ 4 2. Did the defendant meet the burden of rebutting the presumption of equal shares enjoyed by joint tenants? Factual and Procedural History ¶ 5 Rausch and…”
Show all 236 citing cases →
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(1): 50 cases
In Re the Marriage of Durbin, 823 P.2d 243 (Mont. 1991). “I do not agree that § 40-4-208, MCA, requires the majority's conclusion.”
Williams v. Budke, 606 P.2d 515 (Mont. 1980).
In Re the Marriage of Carlson, 693 P.2d 496 (Mont. 1984).
Marriage of Winters v. Winters, 2004 MT 82 (Mont. 2004). “Did the District Court violate § 40-4-208, MCA, when it ordered a deferred payment plan for past due child support and past due medical support? ¶4 2.”
In Re Marriage of Cowan, 928 P.2d 214 (Mont. 1996).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2): 25 cases
Bertagnolli v. Bertagnolli, 604 P.2d 299 (Mont. 1979).
In Re the Marriage of Carlson, 693 P.2d 496 (Mont. 1984).
Marriage of Baer v. Baer, 647 P.2d 835 (Mont. 1982).
In Re the Marriage of Jensen, 727 P.2d 512 (Mont. 1986).
In Re the Marriage of Kukes, 852 P.2d 655 (Mont. 1993).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(a): 8 cases
In Re Marriage of DeCosse, 936 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1997). “Section 40-4-208, MCA, provides that a district court may, in certain instances, order a modification of a maintenance provision in a decree of dissolution.”
In Re the Marriage of Craib, 880 P.2d 1379 (Mont. 1994). “If anything his ability to pay child support was only temporarily changed and a temporary change in circumstances is not sufficient to justify modification of child support.”
State, Dept. of Revenue v. Hubbard, 720 P.2d 1177 (Mont. 1986).
In Re the Marriage of Smith, 861 P.2d 189 (Mont. 1993).
In Re the Marriage of Hagemo, 749 P.2d 1079 (Mont. 1988).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(a)(i): 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Stewart, 793 P.2d 813 (Mont. 1990).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(b): 30 cases
In Re the Marriage of Clyatt, 882 P.2d 503 (Mont. 1994). “The District Court made no specific findings regarding a change in circumstances or the conscionability of Eugene's child support obligation — the factors to be considered under § 40-4-208, MCA. However, in the court's later opinion and order denying Eugene's motions for…”
In Re the Marriage of Schmieding, 2003 MT 246 (Mont. 2003). “Did the District Court err in modifying its original maintenance award, granting Jennifer future maintenance? ¶33 Peter next takes issue with the District Court’s modification of the maintenance award, arguing that the court erred in failing to make the required findings of…”
In Re the Marriage of Jarussi, 1998 MT 272 (Mont. 1998). “DISCUSSION ¶5 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in modifying Gene’s child support obligation pursuant to § 40-4-208(2)(b), MCA? ¶6 Section 40-4-208, MCA, governs modification of child support provisions in a dissolution decree.”
In Re Marriage of DeCosse, 936 P.2d 821 (Mont. 1997). “Section 40-4-208, MCA, provides that a district court may, in certain instances, order a modification of a maintenance provision in a decree of dissolution.”
In Re the Marriage of Barnard, 870 P.2d 91 (Mont. 1994).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i): 60 cases
Mooney v. Brennan, 848 P.2d 1020 (Mont. 1993). “Subsection (2)(b)(i), which is applicable to the facts presented here, reads: (b) Whenever the decree proposed for modification contains provisions relating to .”
In Re the Marriage of Craib, 880 P.2d 1379 (Mont. 1994). “If anything his ability to pay child support was only temporarily changed and a temporary change in circumstances is not sufficient to justify modification of child support.”
In Re the Marriage of Brown, 940 P.2d 122 (Mont. 1997).
In Re the Marriage of Olsen, 848 P.2d 1026 (Mont. 1993).
In Re the Marriage of Pearson, 1998 MT 236 (Mont. 1998).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(b)(ii): 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Jarussi, 1998 MT 272 (Mont. 1998). “DISCUSSION ¶5 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in modifying Gene’s child support obligation pursuant to § 40-4-208(2)(b), MCA? ¶6 Section 40-4-208, MCA, governs modification of child support provisions in a dissolution decree.”
Marriage of Midence v. Hampton, 2006 MT 294 (Mont. 2006).
In Re the Marriage of Gallant, 786 P.2d 1193 (Mont. 1990).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(b)(iii): 3 cases
In Re the Marriage of Murphy, 885 P.2d 440 (Mont. 1994).
Marriage of Healy, 2016 MT 154 (Mont. 2016).
Marriage of Healy, 2016 MT 154 (Mont. 2016).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2)(f): 1 case
Marriage of Laster v. Laster, 643 P.2d 597 (Mont. 1982).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(2Xb): 1 case
Torma v. Torma, 645 P.2d 395 (Mont. 1982).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(3): 14 cases
In Re the Marriage of Lorge, 675 P.2d 115 (Mont. 1984).
Hadford v. Hadford, 633 P.2d 1181 (Mont. 1981).
Harris v. Harris, 616 P.2d 1099 (Mont. 1980).
In Re the Marriage of Laskey, 829 P.2d 935 (Mont. 1992).
In Re the Marriage of Gibson, 671 P.2d 629 (Mont. 1983).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(3)(b): 14 cases
Hadford v. Hadford, 633 P.2d 1181 (Mont. 1981).
Marriage of Lutes v. Lutes, 2005 MT 242 (Mont. 2005).
Lee v. Lee, 2000 MT 67 (Mont. 2000).
In re Simpson, 430 P.3d 999 (Mont. 2018).
In Re the Marriage of Kolczak, 2004 MT 241 (Mont. 2004).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(4): 7 cases
Marriage of Florian & Charlene Co, 2008 MT 28 (Mont. 2008). “1 For example, in the present case, if Florian had petitioned to modify his maintenance obligation as it somehow became unconscionable, a possibility provided for by § 40-4-208(2)(b)(i), MCA, the Court would not have the authority to grant 6 ¶16 I dissent.”
Marriage of Hahn Cladouhous, 868 P.2d 599 (Mont. 1994).
In Re the Marriage of Wolf, 2011 MT 192 (Mont. 2011).
In Re the Marriage of Bross, 845 P.2d 728 (Mont. 1993).
In Re the Marriage of Schara, 878 P.2d 908 (Mont. 1994).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(5): 13 cases
In Re the Marriage of Gingerich, 887 P.2d 714 (Mont. 1994). “The change in the parties' incomes in this case is not a sufficient basis to warrant modification of the Decree.”
Marriage of Pfeifer, 2013 MT 129 (Mont. 2013).
In Re the Marriage of Bordner, 715 P.2d 436 (Mont. 1986).
Lamdin v. Ferrara, 855 P.2d 521 (Mont. 1993).
In Re the Marriage of Sacry, 833 P.2d 1035 (Mont. 1992).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(6): 1 case
Stewart v. Rogers, 2004 MT 138 (Mont. 2004).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(8): 1 case
Marriage of Han & Degennaro, 2025 MT 61N (Mont. 2025).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(b): 3 cases
Isaacs v. Isaacs, 728 P.2d 1345 (Mont. 1986).
Smith v. Smith, 2015 MT 256 (Mont. 2015).
In Re the Marriage of Eickmeyer, 895 P.2d 623 (Mont. 1995).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(b)(i): 2 cases
Smith v. Smith, 2015 MT 256 (Mont. 2015).
Custody of Hetland, 2004 MT 194N (Mont. 2004).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(l): 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Glanville, 899 P.2d 527 (Mont. 1995).
Marriage of Richardson (Mont. 1985).
Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-208(l)(b)(ii): 1 case
Fraunhofer v. Price, 594 P.2d 324 (Mont. 1979).
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.