Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 72-6-211 (2026)

Ownership During Lifetime

✓ 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 6. NONPROBATE TRANSFERS ON DEATH

Part 2. Multiple-Party Accounts

Ownership During Lifetime

72-6-211. Ownership during lifetime. (1) In this section, "net contribution" of a party means the sum of all deposits to an account made by or for the party, less all payments from the account made to or for the party that have not been paid to or applied to the use of another party and a proportionate share of any charges deducted from the account, plus a proportionate share of any interest or dividends earned, whether or not included in the current balance. The term includes deposit life insurance proceeds added to the account by reason of death of the party whose net contribution is in question.

(2) During the lifetime of all parties, an account belongs to the parties in proportion to the net contribution of each to the sums on deposit unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent. As between parties married to each other, in the absence of proof otherwise, the net contribution of each is presumed to be an equal amount.

(3) A beneficiary in an account having a POD designation has no right to sums on deposit during the lifetime of any party.

(4) An agent in an account with an agency designation has no beneficial right to sums on deposit.

History: En. Sec. 90, Ch. 494, L. 1993.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Matter of Est. of Lahren, 886 P.2d 412 (Mont. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Est. of Lahren, 886 P.2d 412 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 2× “At any time before the depositor’s death, the depositor can change the beneficiary or withdraw the account and use the funds.”

State v. Kane, 1999 MT 337 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 12× “As the District Court pointed out: the official comments to § 72-6-211, MCA, include the following language: “[t]his section does not undertake to describe the situation between parties if one party withdraws more than that party is then entitled to as against the other party.”

In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Anderson, 2009 MT 344 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Official Comments to §§72-6-211 and 213, MCA, Annotations. The P.”

Est. of B. Haler, 2026 MT 111 (Mont. 2026). · cites it 5× “Montana’s Uniform Probate Code similarly provides that the “[d]eath of the sole party or last-surviving party terminates the authority of an agent,” § 72-6-205(3), MCA, and that “[a]n agent in an account with an agency designation has no beneficial right to sums on deposit,” §…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 72-6-211(2) — 1 case

State v. Kane, 1999 MT 337 (Mont. 1999). “As the District Court pointed out: the official comments to § 72-6-211, MCA, include the following language: “[t]his section does not undertake to describe the situation between parties if one party withdraws more than that party is then entitled to as against the other party.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 72-6-211(4) — 1 case

Est. of B. Haler, 2026 MT 111 (Mont. 2026). “Montana’s Uniform Probate Code similarly provides that the “[d]eath of the sole party or last-surviving party terminates the authority of an agent,” § 72-6-205(3), MCA, and that “[a]n agent in an account with an agency designation has no beneficial right to sums on deposit,” §…”

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.