Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 72. ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS · CHAPTER 1. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS · Part 2. Scope, Jurisdiction, and Courts
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-201 (2026)

Territorial Application

✓ 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 72
  3. CHAPTER 1
  4. Part 2
  5. 72-1-201 Territorial application

TITLE 72. ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER 1. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS

Part 2. Scope, Jurisdiction, and Courts

Territorial Application

72-1-201. Territorial application. Except as otherwise provided in this code, this code applies to:

(1) the affairs and estates of decedents, missing persons, and persons to be protected in this state;

(2) the property of nonresidents located in this state or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of this state;

(3) incapacitated persons and minors in this state; and

(4) survivorship and related accounts in this state.

History: En. 91A-1-301 by Sec. 1, Ch. 365, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 91A-1-301; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 313, L. 2019.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: In Re the Est. of Lambert, 2006 MT 228 (Mont. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Est. of Lambert, 2006 MT 228 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 16× “” Section 72-1-201(2), MCA. The Legislature defined “property” broadly, as “anything that may be the subject of ownership.”
Matter of Est. of Ducey, 787 P.2d 749 (Mont. 1990). · cites it 8× “This principle is also codified in the Uniform Probate Code, § 72-1-201, MCA, which provides that the Code applies to "the property of nonresidents located in this state or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of this state .”
In Re the Est. of Strange, 2008 MT 158 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 7× “]” The District Court concluded it had jurisdiction over Alan, as John’s Personal Representative, because Alan acquired fiduciary control over John’s property and was a Montana resident subject to the laws of this state.”
Matter of Est. of Pegg, 680 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1984). “Arguably, then, the traditional rule enunciated by the California court and other state courts still applies notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 72-1-201(2) and 72-30-605. *84 Similarly, a fair reading of the previously cited code sections in light of the traditional rule…”
Est. of Kelly, 2014 MT 254 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 3× “Presuming the FLPA to be a “governing instrument” under both Montana and Illinois law, its designation of “heirs” properly refers to those designated under the intestate succession law of the state of her demise, Montana.”
Est. of Du Lac, 2012 MT 107N (Mont. 2012). · cites it 3× “Additionally, § 72-3-112, MCA, states: (1) Venue for the first informal or formal testacy or appointment proceedings after a decedent’s death is: (a) in the county where the decedent had the decedent’s domicile at the time of death; or 3 (b) if the decedent was not domiciled in…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-201(1) — 1 case
Est. of Kelly, 2014 MT 254 (Mont. 2014). “Presuming the FLPA to be a “governing instrument” under both Montana and Illinois law, its designation of “heirs” properly refers to those designated under the intestate succession law of the state of her demise, Montana.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-201(2) — 4 cases
In Re the Est. of Lambert, 2006 MT 228 (Mont. 2006). “” Section 72-1-201(2), MCA. The Legislature defined “property” broadly, as “anything that may be the subject of ownership.”
Matter of Est. of Ducey, 787 P.2d 749 (Mont. 1990). “This principle is also codified in the Uniform Probate Code, § 72-1-201, MCA, which provides that the Code applies to "the property of nonresidents located in this state or property coming into the control of a fiduciary who is subject to the laws of this state .”
In Re the Est. of Strange, 2008 MT 158 (Mont. 2008). “]” The District Court concluded it had jurisdiction over Alan, as John’s Personal Representative, because Alan acquired fiduciary control over John’s property and was a Montana resident subject to the laws of this state.”
Matter of Est. of Pegg, 680 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1984). “Arguably, then, the traditional rule enunciated by the California court and other state courts still applies notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 72-1-201(2) and 72-30-605. *84 Similarly, a fair reading of the previously cited code sections in light of the traditional rule…”
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.