Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 70. PROPERTY · CHAPTER 19. REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS GENERALLY LIMITATIONS AND ADVERSE POSSESSION · Part 4. Limitations and Adverse Possession
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 70-19-404 (2026)

Presumption Of Possession Within Prescribed Period -- Adverse Possession As Exception

✓ 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 70
  3. CHAPTER 19
  4. Part 4
  5. 70-19-404 Presumption of possession within prescribed period -- adverse possession as exception

TITLE 70. PROPERTY

CHAPTER 19. REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS GENERALLY LIMITATIONS AND ADVERSE POSSESSION

Part 4. Limitations and Adverse Possession

Presumption Of Possession Within Prescribed Period -- Adverse Possession As Exception

70-19-404. Presumption of possession within prescribed period -- adverse possession as exception. In every action for the recovery of real property or the possession thereof, the person establishing a legal title to the property is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law, and the occupation of the property by any other person is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title unless it appear that the property has been held and possessed adversely to such legal title for 5 years before the commencement of the action.

History: En. Sec. 4, p. 466, Bannack Stat.; re-en. Sec. 4, p. 515, Cod. Stat. 1871; amd. Sec. 32, p. 46, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 32, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 32, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 486, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6435, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9018, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 321; re-en. Sec. 9018, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 224, L. 1953; R.C.M. 1947, 93-2507.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Letica Land Co. v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 2015 MT 323 (Mont. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Letica Land Co. v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Cnty., 2015 MT 323 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 8× “¶49 We conclude that the District Court erred in its application of the law regarding reverse adverse possession to the facts existing on the upper branch.”
Y a Bar Livestock Co. v. Harkness, 887 P.2d 1211 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 6× “This section states: [T]he person establishing a legal title to the property is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by law, and the occupation of the property by any other person is deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title…”
Heller v. Gremaux, 2002 MT 199 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 2× “Since 1953, the statutory period required to establish an adverse possession claim is five years pursuant to § 70-19-404, MCA. Prior to 1953, the statutory period was ten years.”
Ray v. Nansel, 2002 MT 191 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 2× “See § 70-19-404, MCA; Renner v. Nemitz, 2001 MT 202, ¶ 13 , 306 Mont.”
Wolf v. Owens, 2007 MT 302 (Mont. 2007). · cites it 3× “Section 70-19-404, MCA. ¶25 Owens claims that Appellees failed to satisfy all these elements before the District Court.”
Albert v. Hastetter, 2002 MT 123 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 2× “Renner , ¶ 13; § 70-19-404, MCA. Montana has consistently followed the minority rule, which holds that open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive use raises a presumption that the use was also adverse.”
Brown & Brown of MT, Inc. v. Raty, 2012 MT 264 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 2× “1 Since 1953, the statutory period required to establish an adverse possession claim has been five years pursuant to § 70-19-404, MCA. Prior to 1953, the statutory period was ten years.”
Harding v. Savoy, 2004 MT 280 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 3× “Albert , ¶ 20; Section 70-19-404, MCA. Montana has *275 consistently followed the minority rule, which holds that open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive use raises a presumption that the use was also adverse.”
Swandal Ranch Co. v. Hunt, 915 P.2d 840 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “To establish either a public or private easement by prescription, the party claiming the easement must show “open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted use of the easement claimed for the full statutory period.”
Leffingwell Ranch, Inc. v. Cieri, 916 P.2d 751 (Mont. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 70-19-404, MCA. Prior to that time the statutory period was ten years.”
Woods v. Houle, 766 P.2d 250 (Mont. 1988). · cites it 3× “PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT The person who holds legal title to the real property is presumed to have been possessed thereof within the time required by *161 law, and the occupation of that property by any other person is deemed to have been under and in subordination of the legal…”
McClurg v. Flathead Cnty. Commissioners, 610 P.2d 1153 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 3× “See section 70-19-404, MCA. It is not disputed that the public has used the road to cross plaintiff’s property for over 25 years.”
Show all 35 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.