Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-301 (2026)

Notice -- Method And Time Of Giving

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 72. ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER 1. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE GENERAL PROVISIONS

Part 3. Notices, Parties, and Representation Generally

Notice -- Method And Time Of Giving

72-1-301. Notice -- method and time of giving. (1) If notice of a hearing on any petition is required and except for specific notice requirements as otherwise provided, the petitioner shall cause notice of the time and place of hearing of any petition to be given to any interested person or the person's attorney if the person has appeared by attorney or requested that notice be sent to the person's attorney. Notice must be given:

(a) by mailing a copy of the notice at least 14 days before the time set for the hearing by certified mail or ordinary first-class mail addressed to the person being notified at the post-office address given in the person's demand for notice, if any, or at the person's office or place of residence, if known;

(b) by delivering a copy of the notice to the person being notified personally at least 14 days before the time set for the hearing; or

(c) if the address or identity of any person is not known and cannot be ascertained with reasonable diligence, by publishing the notice in a weekly paper once a week for 3 consecutive weeks and, if in a newspaper published more often than once a week, by publishing on at least 3 different days of publication. There must be at least 10 days from the first to the last day of publication, both the first and last day being included.

(2) The court for good cause shown may provide for a different method or time of giving notice for any hearing.

(3) Proof of the giving of notice must be made on or before the hearing and filed in the proceeding.

History: En. 91A-1-401 by Sec. 1, Ch. 365, L. 1974; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 516, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 91A-1-401; amd. Sec. 2307, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: In Re the Est. of Bovey, 2010 MT 217 (Mont. 2010).
In Re the Est. of Bovey, 2010 MT 217 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 8× “The District Court concluded that in probate proceedings § 72-1-301, MCA, allows notice of hearings on any petition to be given by mail, by personal delivery of a copy, or by publication.”
Matter of Est. of Lawson, 721 P.2d 760 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 3× “The estate complains that it was not given a 14 day notice of the hearing on the petition for allowances as required by Section 72-1-301, MCA. The hearing was rescheduled by the parties or the District Court six times before the hearing was held, largely due to an extremely busy…”
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Anderson, 2009 MT 344 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 4× “Because the statute required the District Court to hold a hearing and provide notice to ‘Interested persons,” we must determine whether Wilder, as a TOD beneficiary of Lucille’s investment account, was an ‘Interested person” as defined under §72-1-103(25), MCA, who was entitled…”
In re B.F., 2004 MT 61 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Foster Parents claim that they fully complied with the applicable notice statute, § 72-1-301(1), MCA. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the statute was violated, such failure would have resulted in the court having no personal jurisdiction over the purported…”
In Re the Est. of Barber, 779 P.2d 477 (Mont. 1989). · cites it 2× “When notice is required under the Uniform Probate Code, it must be given in conformity with § 72-1-301, MCA, which notice makes the subject of the order binding as to all persons given notice of the proceedings.”
Guardianship of Jewett, 1998 MT 246N (Mont. 1998). · cites it 12× “htm (4 of 6)4/19/2007 12:07:24 PM No ¶ Jewett contends that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the guardianship because any notice purportedly given to him by the Osets did not conform to the requirements of § 72-1-301, MCA. As a result, according to…”
Est. of: W. Lea, 2026 MT 85N (Mont. 2026). · cites it 4× “The record establishes that Jakob complied with § 72-1-301(1)(a), MCA’s notice requirements.”
Est. of (Pepper) Martin, 2001 MT 110N (Mont. 2001). · cites it 6× “Section 72-1-301(1), MCA. Where a person is represented by an attorney, service can be made either to the person himself or his attorney.”
In Re Bf, 2004 MT 61 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Foster Parents claim that they fully complied with the applicable notice statute, § 72-1-301(1), MCA. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the statute was violated, such failure would have resulted in the court having no personal jurisdiction over the purported…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-301(1): 5 cases
In re B.F., 2004 MT 61 (Mont. 2004). “The Foster Parents claim that they fully complied with the applicable notice statute, § 72-1-301(1), MCA. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the statute was violated, such failure would have resulted in the court having no personal jurisdiction over the purported…”
In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Anderson, 2009 MT 344 (Mont. 2009). “Because the statute required the District Court to hold a hearing and provide notice to ‘Interested persons,” we must determine whether Wilder, as a TOD beneficiary of Lucille’s investment account, was an ‘Interested person” as defined under §72-1-103(25), MCA, who was entitled…”
Est. of (Pepper) Martin, 2001 MT 110N (Mont. 2001). “Section 72-1-301(1), MCA. Where a person is represented by an attorney, service can be made either to the person himself or his attorney.”
In Re Bf, 2004 MT 61 (Mont. 2004). “The Foster Parents claim that they fully complied with the applicable notice statute, § 72-1-301(1), MCA. In the alternative, they argue that, even if the statute was violated, such failure would have resulted in the court having no personal jurisdiction over the purported…”
Guardianship of Jewett, 1998 MT 246N (Mont. 1998). “htm (4 of 6)4/19/2007 12:07:24 PM No ¶ Jewett contends that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the guardianship because any notice purportedly given to him by the Osets did not conform to the requirements of § 72-1-301, MCA. As a result, according to…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-301(1)(a): 1 case
Est. of: W. Lea, 2026 MT 85N (Mont. 2026). “The record establishes that Jakob complied with § 72-1-301(1)(a), MCA’s notice requirements.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-1-301(2): 1 case
Est. of: W. Lea, 2026 MT 85N (Mont. 2026). “The record establishes that Jakob complied with § 72-1-301(1)(a), MCA’s notice requirements.”
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.