{"meta":{"key":"s_mt--pass-19","task":"S_MT","title":"SMT Bounded corrections and qualifications to","parent_title":"Montana debt and debt relief law","edition":"pass-19","path":"/research/s_mt--pass-19/","kind":"split_pass","category":"state","role":"state","area_numbers":[66],"groups":["collections"],"date":"2026-10-26","tables":11,"claims":17,"sources":11,"review_status":"four_targeted_groups_resolved_with_limits","review_complete":true,"sha256":"97c28df3b349a7993e615ef5910691dc57609ed7bc9f859723a54f10600299d8","headings":["Correction determination","Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 1","Example 1 — Unauthorized charge without bona fide error","Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 2","Example 2 — Bona-fide-error and posted-versus-received branches","Group 1 affected claim replacements","Exact replacement for PASS-07 E5","E5. Public MCPA injunction, notice, TRO, and venue routes","Exact replacement for PASS-07 E6","E6. Public civil fines, criminal sanction, Part 20 fine, and vulnerable-adult branches","Vulnerable-adult alternatives","Group 2 affected claim replacements","Exact replacement for PASS-07 G1","G1. Private MCPA claim","Ordinary entity or ordinary statutory-liability branch","Director or stockholder branch","Trigger qualification","Exact replacement for PASS-07 G2","G2. Part 20 express damages and fee-return claims","Exact replacement for PASS-07 G3","G3. Part 21 private remedies","Conditional defendant-type workflow","Group 3 affected claim replacements","Corrected C004","Corrected C024 and Granbois treatment","Correct Granbois posture and result","Corrected Osterman source and posture","Freshly read","Preserved, not reclassified","Still unresolved"],"generation_provenance":{"actual_route":"regular_chat_adaptive_models","actual_model":"GPT-5.6 Sol","actual_mode":"Pro","provenance_limit":"Actual documented capture labels only; missing labels remain unknown. No preferred setting is inferred as actual execution."},"public_id":"S_MT/pass-19","facets":{"geography":["us","us-mt"],"debt_type":[],"stage":[],"subject":["fees-outcomes"]},"scope":"Four independently examined P7 correction/qualification groups; full broader review in progress","pending_corrections":0},"markdown":"# S_MT PASS-19 — Bounded corrections and qualifications to PASS-07\n\n**Fresh access date:** October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC\n**Scope:** Only the four requested PASS-07 correction groups. PASS-18 is not repeated or adopted. All unaffected PASS-07 findings, examples, claims, sources, and coverage holds remain unchanged.\n\n## Correction determination\n\n| Group | Determination | Effect on PASS-07 |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **1. Examples 1–2: received-fee premise** | **Corrected.** Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) can be triggered by an unauthorized fee’s **imposition** or an unauthorized payment’s **receipt**, but the mandatory return measure is **all fees actually received** from or for the consumer. | Replace Examples 1 and 2 and qualify C007–C011. |\n| **2. Public enforcement and penalties** | **Corrected and expanded.** The exact §30-14-111 temporal wording, 20-day injunction notice, separate TRO route, venue, vulnerable-adult alternatives, and §30-14-2015(8) text are supplied below. | Replace E5 and E6; qualify C017 and C029. |\n| **3. Defendant-specific limitations** | **Qualified.** The ordinary private statutory-liability route is two years, but §27-2-211(3) contains a distinct three-year branch for qualifying actions against corporate directors or stockholders. It is not a universal discovery period or an owner/affiliate rule. | Replace G1–G3; qualify C031 and C033. |\n| **4. Pinpoints and case provenance** | **Corrected.** C004 belongs to §30-14-2015(1), *Granbois* is 1999 MT 222, and *Osterman* arose from summary judgment rather than a Rule 12 dismissal. | Replace C004, qualify C024, and replace source rows S010 and S014. |\n\n# GROUP 1 — Unauthorized fee imposition versus fee receipt\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 1\n\n### Example 1 — Unauthorized charge without bona fide error\n\n**Assumptions**\n\n- A valid Part 20 DMP initially exists.\n- Initial fee actually received: $75.00.\n- Six monthly fees actually received:\n\n6×$30.00=$180.006\\times \\$30.00=\\$180.006×$30.00=$180.00- Total fees received before the new charge:\n\n$75.00+$180.00=$255.00\\$75.00+\\$180.00=\\$255.00$75.00+$180.00=$255.00- The provider imposes an unauthorized $20.00 processing charge.\n- The charge is a provider fee.\n- Assume the bona-fide-error exception does **not** apply.\n- Consumer creditor-payment principal, if any, is separate and is not included in these fee totals.\n\nSection 30-14-2010(4)(g) is triggered when a service either imposes an unauthorized fee or charge **or** receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent bona fide error. Its return measure, however, is all **fees received** from or on behalf of the consumer. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html)\n\n#### Branch A — the $20.00 was imposed but never paid\n\nFees actually received remain:\n\n$75.00+$180.00=$255.00\\$75.00+\\$180.00=\\boxed{\\$255.00}$75.00+$180.00=$255.00​Conditional statutory consequences:\n\n- The DMP is void under subsection (4)(g).\n- The service must return the **$255.00 actually received in fees**.\n- The unpaid $20.00 is not added to the fee-return arithmetic merely because it was imposed.\n\nThe return amount is therefore:\n\n$255.00\\boxed{\\$255.00}$255.00​#### Branch B — the $20.00 was imposed and actually received\n\nTotal fees received:\n\n$75.00+$180.00+$20.00=$275.00\\$75.00+\\$180.00+\\$20.00\n=\n\\boxed{\\$275.00}$75.00+$180.00+$20.00=$275.00​Conditional statutory consequences:\n\n- The DMP is void.\n- The service must return all $275.00 received in fees.\n\nThe return amount is:\n\n$275.00\\boxed{\\$275.00}$275.00​Neither branch classifies creditor-purpose principal as a fee. Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) speaks of returning all fees; it does not itself provide the complete return, transfer, or accounting mechanism for nonfee consumer principal. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html)\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 2\n\n### Example 2 — Bona-fide-error and posted-versus-received branches\n\n**Assumptions**\n\n- Previously authorized fees actually received: $300.00.\n- A processor posts a duplicate $30.00 fee.\n- Whether the posting constitutes an imposed charge is an actual-system and consumer-account fact.\n- Whether the bona-fide-error exception applies remains a separate legal and factual issue.\n- No burden of proof is assigned by this hypothetical.\n\n#### Branch A — duplicate fee is imposed, remains unpaid, and the exception does not apply\n\nFees received:\n\n$300.00\\boxed{\\$300.00}$300.00​Because imposition itself can trigger subsection (4)(g), the DMP may be void even though the duplicate was not collected. But the return measure remains the fees actually received:\n\n$300.00\\boxed{\\$300.00}$300.00​The unpaid $30.00 is not included in the refund arithmetic.\n\n#### Branch B — duplicate fee is imposed, actually collected, and the exception does not apply\n\nTotal fees received:\n\n$300.00+$30.00=$330.00\\$300.00+\\$30.00\n=\n\\boxed{\\$330.00}$300.00+$30.00=$330.00​The conditional all-fees return is:\n\n$330.00\\boxed{\\$330.00}$330.00​#### Branch C — duplicate is merely an internal posting\n\nIf the posting was neither communicated or imposed as a charge nor actually received, subsection (4)(g)’s fee-imposition or receipt predicate is not established on that fact alone. Other correction, accounting, contract, or consumer-protection duties may still exist.\n\n#### Branch D — assume the bona-fide-error exception applies\n\nOn that assumption, subsection (4)(g)’s automatic voidness and all-fees-return consequence does not attach through that clause.\n\nThis does **not** establish that:\n\n- The duplicate $30.00 may be retained.\n- A received duplicate was lawfully earned.\n- The fee was contractually authorized.\n- Another refund, correction, actual-damages, or public remedy is unavailable.\n\n#### Branch E — bona-fide-error facts unresolved\n\nNo automatic voidness or return total is declared until the exception predicate is resolved. The statute does not define “bona fide error” here, allocate the burden, prescribe a cure, or establish that a recurring system configuration is categorically inside or outside the exception. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html)\n\n## Group 1 affected claim replacements\n\n| PASS-07 claim | Replacement or qualification |\n| --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P7-C007 — retained and clarified** | An unauthorized **imposition** of a fee or charge or unauthorized **receipt** of funds or payments can trigger §30-14-2010(4)(g), provided the bona-fide-error exception does not apply. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C008 — replaced** | Once subsection (4)(g) applies, the service must return **all fees actually received** from or on behalf of the consumer. An imposed but unpaid fee can trigger voidness but is not added to the return measure. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C009 — retained** | “All fees” is not textually identical to all consumer principal, creditor-purpose funds, or other nonfee money. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C010 — retained with factual precision** | The subsection contains no express minimum amount, reliance, intent, notice, or cure requirement. Actual imposition, receipt, fee classification, and bona-fide-error facts still must be established. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C011 — replaced** | “Bona fide error” is undefined in Part 20. The statute does not expressly assign the burden, prescribe reasonable-procedure elements, distinguish legal from clerical error, or establish that recurring configuration or prompt correction is determinative. No categorical test is supplied here. |\n\n# GROUP 2 — Public-enforcement routes and exact penalty predicates\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 E5\n\n### E5. Public MCPA injunction, notice, TRO, and venue routes\n\nSection 30-14-111 authorizes the Department to act when it has reason to believe that a person **“is using, has used, or is about to knowingly use”** an unlawful method, act, or practice and the proceeding would be in the public interest. The grammatical placement of “knowingly” is preserved exactly; this patch does not impose one universal knowledge element across all past, present, and future branches without controlling construction. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html)\n\nFor a temporary or permanent injunction:\n\n- The notice must state generally the relief sought.\n- It must be served under §30-14-115 at least **20 days before the injunction hearing**.\n- Section 30-14-115 calls first for personal service in Montana; if personal service cannot be obtained, substitute service may use the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.\n- The action may be filed in District Court where the person resides or has a principal place of business.\n- If the person is not a Montana resident or maintains no Montana place of business, venue may lie in Lewis and Clark County.\n- The District Court may issue temporary or permanent injunctions without bond. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html)\n\nA temporary restraining order follows a distinct route. Section 30-14-111(2) directs TRO notice questions to §27-19-315. An ex parte TRO generally requires:\n\n1. A showing satisfying the four preliminary-relief elements in §27-19-201(1): likely merits success, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest; and\n2. Written certification of notice efforts and the reasons notice should not be required.\n\nNo actual TRO, hearing date, service, or calendar computation is resolved here. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0030/section_0150/0270-0190-0030-0150.html)\n\nThe Department’s other Part 1 investigative and restorative routes remain as previously stated, including civil investigative demands, subpoenas, restoration, receivership, and county-attorney participation. This correction only supplies §30-14-111’s exact predicates and procedure.\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 E6\n\n### E6. Public civil fines, criminal sanction, Part 20 fine, and vulnerable-adult branches\n\n| Conduct | Maximum stated sanction | Complete predicate and classification |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Violation of a §30-14-111 injunction or TRO | Up to $10,000 for each violation | Civil fine. The issuing District Court retains jurisdiction, and the Department may petition for recovery. |\n| Willful unlawful practice in a §30-14-111 action | Up to $10,000 for each violation | Civil fine, additional to subsection (1). “Willful” means the party knew or should have known the conduct violated §30-14-103. |\n| Fraudulent course of unlawful conduct | Up to $5,000, imprisonment up to one year, or both | Criminal sanction only **upon conviction**; not every MCPA violation is criminal. |\n| Part 20 unlicensed counseling, failure to maintain separate trust account, or failure to maintain required records | “Shall be fined” not more than $5,000 for each violation | Section 30-14-2015(8) does not identify in that subsection the tribunal, initiating procedure, public/private recipient, or civil/criminal classification. It is neither called an automatic self-executing criminal fine nor reduced to a wholly discretionary nonconsequence. |\n| Unlawful practice perpetrated against a vulnerable adult | Additional civil penalty up to $10,000 for each violation | Available if either statutory branch in §30-14-144(1)(a) **or** (b) is met; private §30-14-133 damages receive priority over this penalty. |\n\nThe first three rows arise from §30-14-142. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html) The Part 20 row follows the exact “shall be fined” language in §30-14-2015(8). [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html)\n\n### Vulnerable-adult alternatives\n\nThe additional penalty under §30-14-144 requires an unlawful §30-14-103 practice perpetrated against a vulnerable adult and **either**:\n\n**Branch A — directed-conduct knowledge**\n\nThe person knew or should have known that the conduct was directed toward one or more vulnerable adults.\n\n**Branch B — specified loss**\n\nThe conduct caused a vulnerable adult to suffer at least one of these five losses:\n\n1. Loss or encumbrance of a primary residence.\n2. Loss of principal employment or another income source.\n3. Substantial loss of property reserved for retirement or personal or family care and maintenance.\n4. Substantial loss of pension, retirement-plan, or government-benefit payments.\n5. Loss of assets essential to health or welfare.\n\nKnowledge under Branch A is therefore **not** a universal additional element of Branch B. The two branches are alternatives. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0440/0300-0140-0010-0440.html)\n\nFor this penalty, “vulnerable adult” means a person who is at least 60 years old, or an adult who has the specified substantially limiting physical or mental impairment or qualifying developmental disability. No actual person’s age, impairment, disability, loss, or vulnerability is assumed. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0520/chapter_0030/part_0080/section_0030/0520-0030-0080-0030.html)\n\n## Group 2 affected claim replacements\n\n| PASS-07 claim | Replacement or qualification |\n| --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P7-C017 — replaced** | Section 30-14-2015(8) says the three enumerated Part 20 violators **shall be fined** not more than $5,000 for each violation. The section does not itself resolve forum, initiating party, classification, collection process, or amount-selection procedure. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C029 — qualified** | Public MCPA relief includes the exact §30-14-111 injunction/TRO route, including the public-interest predicate, 20-day generally stated injunction notice, §30-14-115 service, separate TRO procedure, and statutory venue. Restoration, receivership, and license revocation remain supported as previously stated. |\n| **New qualification to E6** | The §30-14-144 vulnerable-adult penalty has alternative knowledge and specified-loss branches; knowledge is not required under both. Private §30-14-133 damages receive statutory priority over this additional penalty. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C035 — retained** | The special five-year discovery provision in §30-14-111 applies to the Department’s injunction action described there, while §30-14-135 sends other Department enforcement actions to the five-year residual rule in §27-2-231. Their application remains remedy-specific. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html) |\n\n# GROUP 3 — Defendant-specific limitations qualification\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 G1\n\n### G1. Private MCPA claim\n\nCurrent §30-14-133 says that an individual MCPA action must be commenced within the timeframe described in **§27-2-211 as a whole**. It does not cite only subsection (1)(c). [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html)\n\n### Ordinary entity or ordinary statutory-liability branch\n\nSection 27-2-211(1)(c) provides a two-year period for a liability created by statute that is neither a penalty or forfeiture nor the identified public-assistance debt. *Osterman* held that the MCPA creates a statutory liability and applied the two-year branch to its claims against Sears and K-Designers. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html)\n\n### Director or stockholder branch\n\nSection 27-2-211(3) separately states that, notwithstanding other provisions in the chapter, qualifying actions **against directors or stockholders of a corporation** to recover a penalty or forfeiture or enforce a liability created by law must be brought within three years under that subsection’s triggering language. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html)\n\nIn *Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co.*, the Montana Supreme Court held that subsection (3), rather than subsection (1)(c), applied where the plaintiffs sued the majority shareholder, corporate president, and board member in that corporate capacity to enforce statutory dissenters’ rights. The Court described subsection (3) as specifically governing directors and stockholders and allowing three years instead of two. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html)\n\nThe three-year branch is **not** automatically available merely because a defendant is:\n\n- An employee.\n- An officer who is not sued as a director or stockholder.\n- An LLC member.\n- An affiliate.\n- A parent company.\n- A lead generator.\n- A service provider’s owner.\n- A person who participated in conduct.\n\nThe actual defendant’s corporate capacity, the claim’s legal nature, and whether the action seeks a penalty, forfeiture, or liability created by law must be established.\n\n### Trigger qualification\n\nThe current statutory sentence contains discovery language. But older Montana Supreme Court decisions construing its materially similar predecessor parsed the alternatives differently: they measured a liability-created-by-law action from creation of the liability, while using discovery for penalty or forfeiture claims. *Hansen* confirmed the three-year defendant-specific branch but did not need to resolve that trigger question because the action was timely from the underlying corporate transaction. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html)\n\nAccordingly, this correction does **not** announce:\n\n- A universal three-year discovery rule.\n- A universal three-year period for all claims against owners.\n- A fixed accrual date for an MCPA director claim.\n- A blanket tolling rule.\n\nActual capacity, claim type, statutory liability, creation date, discovery, concealment, and accrual remain fact-dependent.\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 G2\n\n### G2. Part 20 express damages and fee-return claims\n\nSection 30-14-2015 contains no express limitation period. For an ordinary claim against the covered provider entity or another defendant outside §27-2-211(3), the best-supported provisional classification remains the two-year statutory-liability period in §27-2-211(1)(c). No controlling decision specifically construing the limitation for §30-14-2015 was located. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html)\n\nA distinct branch must now be preserved:\n\n- If the defendant is actually a director or stockholder of a corporation;\n- Is sued in that capacity;\n- And the Part 20 claim against that person seeks a penalty, forfeiture, or liability created by law;\n\nthen §27-2-211(3)’s three-year provision may apply instead of the ordinary two-year branch. Whether Part 20 creates direct liability against that individual, whether the individual is a qualifying director or stockholder, and the subsection’s correct trigger must be established.\n\nThe following remain unresolved:\n\n- The period for a standalone affirmative all-fees-return claim.\n- Defensive use of voidness after the affirmative period.\n- Whether each unauthorized fee is a separate accrual.\n- Concealment, equitable estoppel, or tolling.\n- Class-action tolling.\n- Subsection (3)’s reach to a particular Part 20 individual defendant.\n- Whether the claim is a penalty, forfeiture, or nonpenal statutory liability.\n- The controlling trigger under subsection (3).\n\n## Exact replacement for PASS-07 G3\n\n### G3. Part 21 private remedies\n\nA Part 21 debtor proceeding through §30-14-133 ordinarily invokes §27-2-211:\n\n- The ordinary statutory-liability branch is two years.\n- A qualifying action against a corporate director or stockholder can potentially invoke subsection (3)’s three-year branch.\n- The three-year branch is not automatically available against the provider corporation, an LLC, an employee, an affiliate, or every owner.\n\nThe direct Part 21 cancellation-refund provision contains no express limitation. If enforced through §30-14-133, the relevant §27-2-211 branch depends on the actual defendant and claim. Other contract, restitution, fraud, or equitable theories may use different periods and remain outside PASS-07.\n\n## Conditional defendant-type workflow\n\n| Hypothetical defendant and claim | Provisional limitation route | Conditions and unresolved points |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Provider corporation sued under private MCPA §133 | **Two years** under §27-2-211(1)(c) | Ordinary statutory-liability branch; actual accrual and tolling remain. |\n| Part 20 provider entity sued under §2015 | **Likely two years** | No controlling Part 20 limitation case; exact remedy classification remains provisional. |\n| Corporate majority shareholder who also served as director, sued in that capacity for a statutory liability | **Potential three-year §211(3) branch** | *Hansen* supports status-specific application; direct liability and trigger must be proved. |\n| Corporate employee with no proved director or stockholder status | **No automatic three-year branch** | Title, participation, and statutory-liability theory must be examined. |\n| LLC member or affiliate | **Held** | “Stockholder of a corporation” cannot be assumed to include every LLC member or affiliate. |\n| Director sued only on a separate contract or common-law theory | **Held under the period governing that claim** | Director status does not convert every claim into §211(3). |\n| Penalty or forfeiture claim against qualifying director/stockholder | **Potential three years** | Current text references discovery; historical construction and modern application require claim-specific analysis. |\n\nNo actual filing deadline follows from this matrix.\n\n## Group 3 affected claim replacements\n\n| PASS-07 claim | Replacement or qualification |\n| --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P7-C031 — replaced** | A private MCPA action uses the applicable branch of §27-2-211. The ordinary statutory-liability branch is two years, but qualifying actions against corporate directors or stockholders may fall within subsection (3)’s three-year branch. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C033 — replaced** | An affirmative Part 20 §2015 claim against the provider entity or an ordinary defendant is likely subject to §27-2-211(1)(c)’s two-year period. A qualifying claim against a corporate director or stockholder may instead implicate §27-2-211(3). No Part 20-specific controlling limitation decision was located. |\n| **S_MT-P7-C034 — retained and expanded** | The limitation and accrual rules for affirmative all-fee return, defensive voidness, recurring charges, class claims, and director/stockholder defendants remain unresolved. |\n| **No universal discovery rule** | *Osterman* applied inquiry-notice and concealment principles on its facts. It does not convert every MCPA, Part 20, or Part 21 action into a discovery-accrual claim, and it did not address §27-2-211(3). |\n\n# GROUP 4 — Pinpoint and source corrections\n\n## Corrected C004\n\n| Claim ID | Corrected claim cell |\n| --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P7-C004 — pinpoint corrected** | **Claim:** Part 20 remedies apply to licensees and unlicensed persons to whom Part 20 applies. **Correct source:** S_MT-P7-S001, **§30-14-2015(1)**, not subsection (2). Subsection (2) separately makes every Part 20 violation an MCPA §30-14-103 violation. **Confidence:** High. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html) |\n\n## Corrected C024 and Granbois treatment\n\n| Claim ID | Corrected claim cell |\n| --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P7-C024 — qualified** | *Granbois* held that Part 2’s public-utility definition did not govern the plaintiff’s Part 1 MCPA claim and that the then-current Part 1 PSC exemption did not cover the electric cooperative because the cooperative was not PSC-regulated. The decision does not create a universal rule that every regulated or licensed entity falls outside §30-14-105. The modern §30-14-105 also includes actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the **state auditor**, language not present in the historical exemption applied in *Granbois*. [Justia Law+2](https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780) |\n\n### Correct Granbois posture and result\n\nThe correct citation is ***Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc.*, 1999 MT 222**, docket 98-637, decided September 22, 1999—not 1999 MT 249. The Court reversed summary judgment for the cooperative and directed partial summary judgment for Granbois for $932.07 on the unreasonable-access restriction. It held only that the cooperative was not exempt from the Part 1 MCPA on the exemption theory presented. Whether the cooperative’s conduct actually violated the MCPA, whether it breached good faith, and whether further damages were available remained for remand. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html)\n\n## Corrected Osterman source and posture\n\n***Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.*, 2003 MT 327** arose from defendants’ motions for **summary judgment**. The District Court granted summary judgment on Osterman’s fraud, unfair-trade-practice, and negligent-misrepresentation claims; a trial proceeded on remaining claims. The Supreme Court’s material limitation discussion is at ¶¶21–30, printed pages 8–12, zero-based PDF indices 7–11. The opinion sometimes uses “dismissing” descriptively, but the procedural ruling under review was summary judgment, not a Rule 12 dismissal. [Judicial Document Service+5](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op)\n\n# PASS-19 source register\n\n| Source ID | Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint | Status, actual access, and limits |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P19-S001** | **Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act, §30-14-2010**, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (4)(a)–(g). | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML**, accessed October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Complete section read. Establishes imposition/receipt trigger, bona-fide-error exception, and all-fees-received measure. It does not define bona fide error or assign burden. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S002** | **Part 20 remedies and fine, §30-14-2015**, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (2), and (8). | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Corrects C004 to subsection (1) and preserves exact “shall be fined” text. The section does not itself identify the subsection (8) procedure or classification. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S003** | **Department injunction route**, Montana Legislature: §30-14-111, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html; §30-14-115, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0150/0300-0140-0010-0150.html; §27-19-201, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0020/section_0010/0270-0190-0020-0010.html; §27-19-315, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0030/section_0150/0270-0190-0030-0150.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Complete material clauses read: exact temporal wording, public interest, five-year discovery provision, 20-day injunction notice, service, venue, court, four-factor TRO standard, and written certification. No actual proceeding or calendar application. [Montana Code Annotated+3](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S004** | **MCPA penalties and vulnerable-adult penalty**, Montana Legislature: §30-14-142, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html; §30-14-144, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0440/0300-0140-0010-0440.html; vulnerable-adult definition, §52-3-803, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0520/chapter_0030/part_0080/section_0030/0520-0030-0080-0030.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Complete relevant penalty alternatives, five specified losses, priority rule, and current vulnerable-adult definition read. No actual protected person or loss assumed. [Montana Code Annotated+2](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S005** | **Private MCPA damages and limitation cross-reference**, §30-14-133. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html; **§27-2-211**, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Section 133 refers to the timeframe described in §211 as a whole. Section 211(1)(c) and the director/stockholder subsection (3) were read completely. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S006** | ***Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co.*, 1998 MT 77**, Montana Supreme Court. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html. Relevant ¶¶18–19. | **Fresh full public reproduction of the actual opinion.** The Court applied §27-2-211(3) to a statutory action against the majority shareholder, president, and director in that capacity. It did not resolve a modern discovery-trigger dispute. Secondary host; no paid citator. [Justia Law](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S007** | ***Williams v. Hilger*, 77 Mont. 399, 251 P. 524 (1926)**, https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html; ***Brown v. Roberts*, 78 Mont. 301 (1927)**, https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1927/78-mont-301.html. Relevant *Williams* discussion at reproduced lines corresponding to 77 Mont. 403–406; *Brown* at 78 Mont. 304–308. | **Fresh full historical public reproductions.** Predecessor statute construed to use creation of liability—not discovery—for the liability-created-by-law branch. Historical corporate statutory-liability cases; modern application to MCPA/Part 20 remains unresolved. [Justia Law+1](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S008** | ***Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.*, 2003 MT 327**, Montana Supreme Court official PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op. Relevant ¶¶21–30, printed pp.8–12, zero-based PDF indices 7–11. | **Fresh complete 17-page official PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected with PDF screenshots.** The underlying ruling was summary judgment. The case applied the ordinary two-year statutory-liability branch and inquiry-notice principles; it did not address §27-2-211(3). [Judicial Document Service+5](https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S009** | ***Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc.*, 1999 MT 222**, docket 98-637, Montana Supreme Court. HTML: https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html; PDF: https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780. Exemption discussion at printed pp.9–10, PDF indices 8–9. | **Fresh full public opinion reproduction and PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected.** Decided September 22, 1999. Historical PSC-only exemption analyzed; MCPA merits and additional damages remained on remand. [Justia Law+2](https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S010** | **Current MCPA exemption**, §30-14-105, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Current text covers actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the PSC **or state auditor**. Used only to qualify the historical reach of *Granbois*. [Montana Code Annotated](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html) |\n| **S_MT-P19-S011** | **Department limitation cross-references**, §30-14-135, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html; §27-2-231, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0310/0270-0020-0020-0310.html. | **Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML.** Confirms the general Department residual five-year route. Relationship to §30-14-111’s specific five-year discovery route remains remedy-specific. [Montana Code Annotated+1](https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html) |\n\n# PASS-19 claim register\n\n| PASS-19 claim ID | Relationship to PASS-07 | Precise corrected or qualifying claim | Source and confidence |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| **S_MT-P19-C001** | Qualifies P7-C007/C008 | Unauthorized imposition and unauthorized receipt are alternative §2010(4)(g) triggers, but the return measure is all fees actually received. | S001 §2010(4)(g). **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C002** | Corrects Example 1 | If $20 was imposed but unpaid, received fees and conditional return equal $255; if actually received, they equal $275. | S001. **High arithmetic and textual predicate.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C003** | Corrects Example 2 | Assuming prior $300 was received, a posted-but-unpaid duplicate leaves the return base at $300; actual receipt produces $330. | S001. **High, conditional on posting constituting imposition.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C004** | Qualifies P7-C011 | Part 20 does not define bona fide error, assign its burden, prescribe cure, or make configuration/recurrence categorical. | S001. **High bounded negative.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C005** | Replaces E5 predicate | Section 111 uses the exact sequence “is using, has used, or is about to knowingly use”; no universal knowledge element is added beyond the text without construction. | S003 §111(1). **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C006** | Replaces E5 procedure | Ordinary injunction notice must generally state relief, use §115 service, and precede the hearing by at least 20 days; TROs use §27-19-315’s separate route. | S003. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C007** | Replaces E6 vulnerable-adult row | The additional vulnerable-adult penalty uses alternative knowledge and specified-loss branches; private §133 damages receive priority. | S004 §144. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C008** | Qualifies P7-C017 | Section 2015(8) says qualifying enumerated violators shall be fined up to $5,000 each; forum, process, and classification remain unresolved in that section. | S002 §2015(8). **High text; procedural limits held.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C009** | Qualifies P7-C031 | Private MCPA claims use the applicable branch of §27-2-211, not categorically subsection (1)(c) in every defendant posture. | S005. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C010** | New limitation qualification | Section 211(3) can supply three years for qualifying statutory-liability or penalty actions against corporate directors or stockholders. | S005 §211(3); S006 ¶¶18–19. **High, status- and claim-specific.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C011** | Limits P19-C010 | The three-year branch does not automatically apply to employees, officers, LLC members, affiliates, or every owner. | S005–S006. **High bounded conclusion.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C012** | Qualifies trigger language | Historical Montana precedent construed the predecessor so that statutory-liability actions ran from creation of liability, not discovery; current MCPA/Part 20 reach remains unresolved. | S007. **High historical holding; modern application held.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C013** | Replaces P7-C033 | Part 20 claims against an ordinary entity defendant are likely two-year statutory-liability claims; a qualifying director/stockholder defendant may implicate §211(3). | S002, S005–S008. **Moderate-high; no Part 20 limitation case.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C014** | Corrects P7-C004 | Licensed/unlicensed remedy applicability is in §30-14-2015(1), not subsection (2). | S002 §2015(1). **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C015** | Qualifies P7-C024/S014 | *Granbois*, 1999 MT 222, is limited to the historical Part 1/Part 2 and non-PSC-regulated cooperative facts; modern §105 also references the state auditor. | S009–S010. **High with historical/current distinction.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C016** | Corrects P7-S010 posture | *Osterman* reviewed summary judgment and applied the ordinary two-year MCPA statutory-liability branch; it did not involve a Rule 12 ruling or §211(3). | S008 ¶¶1, 21–30. **High.** |\n| **S_MT-P19-C017** | Retains P7-C035 | Section 111 contains a specific five-year discovery period for the Department injunction action; §135 sends other Department enforcement actions to §231’s residual five years. | S003, S011. **High for text; reconciliation claim-specific.** |\n\n# Coverage and residual-gap table\n\n| Correction issue | Status after PASS-19 | Claim IDs | Remaining evidence or next action |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| Unauthorized fee imposition | **Answered textually** | C001 | Actual account communication and imposition facts. |\n| Fees actually received | **Answered textually** | C001–C003 | Payment, reversal, refund, and fee classification records. |\n| Example 1 $255/$275 branches | **Corrected** | C002 | Whether $20 was actually collected. |\n| Example 2 $300/$330 branches | **Corrected** | C003 | Whether posting was an imposition and whether money was received. |\n| Bona-fide-error definition | **Unresolved** | C004 | Controlling case, rule, or order. |\n| Bona-fide-error burden | **Unresolved** | C004 | Controlling authority; no burden assigned by hypothetical. |\n| Bona-fide-error cure or procedures | **Unresolved** | C004 | Same. |\n| Public injunction substantive predicate | **Corrected** | C005 | Controlling knowledge construction, if litigated. |\n| Injunction notice and service | **Answered** | C006 | Actual hearing and service dates. |\n| TRO route | **Answered in statutory framework** | C006 | Actual ex parte showing and certification. |\n| Vulnerable-adult penalty alternatives | **Corrected** | C007 | Actual vulnerable-adult status, direction, causation, and loss. |\n| §142 civil versus criminal routes | **Preserved and clarified** | C007–C008 | Actual public action or conviction. |\n| Part 20 $5,000 fine | **Text answered; procedure unresolved** | C008 | Forum, initiating authority, classification, and collection process. |\n| Ordinary private MCPA limitation | **Qualified** | C009 | Actual defendant and claim. |\n| Director/stockholder three-year branch | **Answered conditionally** | C010–C012 | Corporate status, sued capacity, statutory liability or penalty, and trigger. |\n| Employees, affiliates, LLC members | **Not automatically covered** | C011 | Entity form and status-specific law. |\n| Part 20 direct limitation | **Partial** | C013 | Controlling Part 20 decision and actual defendant. |\n| All-fees-return limitation | **Unresolved** | C013 | Affirmative claim theory, remedy classification, and accrual. |\n| C004 pinpoint | **Corrected** | C014 | None. |\n| Granbois citation and scope | **Corrected** | C015 | No full paid-citator or remand-record review. |\n| Osterman posture and page range | **Corrected** | C016 | No full subsequent-treatment audit. |\n| P7 federal §6104 source gap | **Unchanged/held** | — | No new federal fetch was used to alter PASS-07’s recorded source status. |\n| Post-2025 comprehensive session audit | **Not completed** | All | Separate currentness pass if required. |\n| Actual provider, contract, consumer, court, or order | **Not examined** | All | Private or entity-specific records remain unavailable and outside scope. |\n\n# Researcher self-check\n\n## Freshly read\n\n- Current MCA §§30-14-2010, 2015, 111, 115, 142, 144, 105, 133, and 135.\n- Current MCA §§27-19-201, 27-19-315, 27-2-211, and 27-2-231.\n- Current vulnerable-adult definition in §52-3-803.\n- Complete relevant opinions or opinion reproductions for:*Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co.*, 1998 MT 77.*Williams v. Hilger*, 77 Mont. 399.*Brown v. Roberts*, 78 Mont. 301.*Osterman v. Sears*, 2003 MT 327.*Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative*, 1999 MT 222.\n- The relevant PDF pages in *Osterman* and *Granbois* were visually inspected.\n\n## Preserved, not reclassified\n\n- The supplied PASS-07 tables and passages remain historical PASS-07 material except for the cells expressly replaced above.\n- The coordinator’s local review packets were not accessed or represented as my own source access.\n- PASS-07’s federal §6104 transport/currentness gap remains unchanged.\n- No other PASS-07 case, federal provision, provider order, or numerical example was rerun.\n\n## Still unresolved\n\n- Bona-fide-error definition, burden, cure, and recurring-system treatment.\n- Part 20 fine forum and procedural classification.\n- Modern trigger construction under §27-2-211(3) for an MCPA or Part 20 action.\n- Whether a particular director, stockholder, officer, employee, LLC member, owner, or affiliate is directly liable.\n- Actual accrual, discovery, concealment, tolling, capacity, contract, fee, payment, harm, and overlap facts.\n- Complete post-2025 legislative and paid-citator review.\n\nNo local write, provider lookup, filing, contact, private-case access, independent-review conclusion, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication-readiness determination occurred.\n\nEND S_MT PASS-19.\n\n","tables":[{"headers":["Group","Determination","Effect on PASS-07"],"index":0,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Group","Determination","Effect on PASS-07"],["1. Examples 1–2: received-fee premise","Corrected. Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) can be triggered by an unauthorized fee’s imposition or an unauthorized payment’s receipt, but the mandatory return measure is all fees actually received from or for the consumer.","Replace Examples 1 and 2 and qualify C007–C011."],["2. Public enforcement and penalties","Corrected and expanded. The exact §30-14-111 temporal wording, 20-day injunction notice, separate TRO route, venue, vulnerable-adult alternatives, and §30-14-2015(8) text are supplied below.","Replace E5 and E6; qualify C017 and C029."],["3. Defendant-specific limitations","Qualified. The ordinary private statutory-liability route is two years, but §27-2-211(3) contains a distinct three-year branch for qualifying actions against corporate directors or stockholders. It is not a universal discovery period or an owner/affiliate rule.","Replace G1–G3; qualify C031 and C033."],["4. Pinpoints and case provenance","Corrected. C004 belongs to §30-14-2015(1), Granbois is 1999 MT 222, and Osterman arose from summary judgment rather than a Rule 12 dismissal.","Replace C004, qualify C024, and replace source rows S010 and S014."]]},{"headers":["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],"index":1,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],["S_MT-P7-C007 — retained and clarified","An unauthorized imposition of a fee or charge or unauthorized receipt of funds or payments can trigger §30-14-2010(4)(g), provided the bona-fide-error exception does not apply."],["S_MT-P7-C008 — replaced","Once subsection (4)(g) applies, the service must return all fees actually received from or on behalf of the consumer. An imposed but unpaid fee can trigger voidness but is not added to the return measure."],["S_MT-P7-C009 — retained","“All fees” is not textually identical to all consumer principal, creditor-purpose funds, or other nonfee money."],["S_MT-P7-C010 — retained with factual precision","The subsection contains no express minimum amount, reliance, intent, notice, or cure requirement. Actual imposition, receipt, fee classification, and bona-fide-error facts still must be established."],["S_MT-P7-C011 — replaced","“Bona fide error” is undefined in Part 20. The statute does not expressly assign the burden, prescribe reasonable-procedure elements, distinguish legal from clerical error, or establish that recurring configuration or prompt correction is determinative. No categorical test is supplied here."]]},{"headers":["Conduct","Maximum stated sanction","Complete predicate and classification"],"index":2,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Conduct","Maximum stated sanction","Complete predicate and classification"],["Violation of a §30-14-111 injunction or TRO","Up to $10,000 for each violation","Civil fine. The issuing District Court retains jurisdiction, and the Department may petition for recovery."],["Willful unlawful practice in a §30-14-111 action","Up to $10,000 for each violation","Civil fine, additional to subsection (1). “Willful” means the party knew or should have known the conduct violated §30-14-103."],["Fraudulent course of unlawful conduct","Up to $5,000, imprisonment up to one year, or both","Criminal sanction only upon conviction; not every MCPA violation is criminal."],["Part 20 unlicensed counseling, failure to maintain separate trust account, or failure to maintain required records","“Shall be fined” not more than $5,000 for each violation","Section 30-14-2015(8) does not identify in that subsection the tribunal, initiating procedure, public/private recipient, or civil/criminal classification. It is neither called an automatic self-executing criminal fine nor reduced to a wholly discretionary nonconsequence."],["Unlawful practice perpetrated against a vulnerable adult","Additional civil penalty up to $10,000 for each violation","Available if either statutory branch in §30-14-144(1)(a) or (b) is met; private §30-14-133 damages receive priority over this penalty."]]},{"headers":["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],"index":3,"links":[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}]],"rows":[["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],["S_MT-P7-C017 — replaced","Section 30-14-2015(8) says the three enumerated Part 20 violators shall be fined not more than $5,000 for each violation. The section does not itself resolve forum, initiating party, classification, collection process, or amount-selection procedure."],["S_MT-P7-C029 — qualified","Public MCPA relief includes the exact §30-14-111 injunction/TRO route, including the public-interest predicate, 20-day generally stated injunction notice, §30-14-115 service, separate TRO procedure, and statutory venue. Restoration, receivership, and license revocation remain supported as previously stated."],["New qualification to E6","The §30-14-144 vulnerable-adult penalty has alternative knowledge and specified-loss branches; knowledge is not required under both. Private §30-14-133 damages receive statutory priority over this additional penalty."],["S_MT-P7-C035 — retained","The special five-year discovery provision in §30-14-111 applies to the Department’s injunction action described there, while §30-14-135 sends other Department enforcement actions to the five-year residual rule in §27-2-231. Their application remains remedy-specific. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"]]},{"headers":["Hypothetical defendant and claim","Provisional limitation route","Conditions and unresolved points"],"index":4,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Hypothetical defendant and claim","Provisional limitation route","Conditions and unresolved points"],["Provider corporation sued under private MCPA §133","Two years under §27-2-211(1)(c)","Ordinary statutory-liability branch; actual accrual and tolling remain."],["Part 20 provider entity sued under §2015","Likely two years","No controlling Part 20 limitation case; exact remedy classification remains provisional."],["Corporate majority shareholder who also served as director, sued in that capacity for a statutory liability","Potential three-year §211(3) branch","Hansen supports status-specific application; direct liability and trigger must be proved."],["Corporate employee with no proved director or stockholder status","No automatic three-year branch","Title, participation, and statutory-liability theory must be examined."],["LLC member or affiliate","Held","“Stockholder of a corporation” cannot be assumed to include every LLC member or affiliate."],["Director sued only on a separate contract or common-law theory","Held under the period governing that claim","Director status does not convert every claim into §211(3)."],["Penalty or forfeiture claim against qualifying director/stockholder","Potential three years","Current text references discovery; historical construction and modern application require claim-specific analysis."]]},{"headers":["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],"index":5,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["PASS-07 claim","Replacement or qualification"],["S_MT-P7-C031 — replaced","A private MCPA action uses the applicable branch of §27-2-211. The ordinary statutory-liability branch is two years, but qualifying actions against corporate directors or stockholders may fall within subsection (3)’s three-year branch."],["S_MT-P7-C033 — replaced","An affirmative Part 20 §2015 claim against the provider entity or an ordinary defendant is likely subject to §27-2-211(1)(c)’s two-year period. A qualifying claim against a corporate director or stockholder may instead implicate §27-2-211(3). No Part 20-specific controlling limitation decision was located."],["S_MT-P7-C034 — retained and expanded","The limitation and accrual rules for affirmative all-fee return, defensive voidness, recurring charges, class claims, and director/stockholder defendants remain unresolved."],["No universal discovery rule","Osterman applied inquiry-notice and concealment principles on its facts. It does not convert every MCPA, Part 20, or Part 21 action into a discovery-accrual claim, and it did not address §27-2-211(3)."]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Corrected claim cell"],"index":6,"links":[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"}]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Corrected claim cell"],["S_MT-P7-C004 — pinpoint corrected","Claim: Part 20 remedies apply to licensees and unlicensed persons to whom Part 20 applies. Correct source: S_MT-P7-S001, §30-14-2015(1), not subsection (2). Subsection (2) separately makes every Part 20 violation an MCPA §30-14-103 violation. Confidence: High. \nMontana Code Annotated"]]},{"headers":["Claim ID","Corrected claim cell"],"index":7,"links":[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}]],"rows":[["Claim ID","Corrected claim cell"],["S_MT-P7-C024 — qualified","Granbois held that Part 2’s public-utility definition did not govern the plaintiff’s Part 1 MCPA claim and that the then-current Part 1 PSC exemption did not cover the electric cooperative because the cooperative was not PSC-regulated. The decision does not create a universal rule that every regulated or licensed entity falls outside §30-14-105. The modern §30-14-105 also includes actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the state auditor, language not present in the historical exemption applied in Granbois. \nJustia Law\n+2"]]},{"headers":["Source ID","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint","Status, actual access, and limits"],"index":8,"links":[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html","text":"Justia Law"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html","text":"Justia Law\n+1"},{"href":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op","text":"Judicial Document Service\n+5"},{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"},{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"}],"row_links":[[],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+3"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html","text":"Justia Law"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html","text":"Justia Law\n+1"}],[{"href":"https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op","text":"Judicial Document Service\n+5"}],[{"href":"https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html","text":"Justia Law\n+2"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated"}],[{"href":"https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html","text":"Montana Code Annotated\n+1"}]],"rows":[["Source ID","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint","Status, actual access, and limits"],["S_MT-P19-S001","Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act, §30-14-2010, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (4)(a)–(g).","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML, accessed October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Complete section read. Establishes imposition/receipt trigger, bona-fide-error exception, and all-fees-received measure. It does not define bona fide error or assign burden. \nMontana Code Annotated"],["S_MT-P19-S002","Part 20 remedies and fine, §30-14-2015, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (2), and (8).","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Corrects C004 to subsection (1) and preserves exact “shall be fined” text. The section does not itself identify the subsection (8) procedure or classification. \nMontana Code Annotated"],["S_MT-P19-S003","Department injunction route, Montana Legislature: §30-14-111, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html; §30-14-115, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0150/0300-0140-0010-0150.html; §27-19-201, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0020/section_0010/0270-0190-0020-0010.html; §27-19-315, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0030/section_0150/0270-0190-0030-0150.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Complete material clauses read: exact temporal wording, public interest, five-year discovery provision, 20-day injunction notice, service, venue, court, four-factor TRO standard, and written certification. No actual proceeding or calendar application. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"],["S_MT-P19-S004","MCPA penalties and vulnerable-adult penalty, Montana Legislature: §30-14-142, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html; §30-14-144, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0440/0300-0140-0010-0440.html; vulnerable-adult definition, §52-3-803, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0520/chapter_0030/part_0080/section_0030/0520-0030-0080-0030.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Complete relevant penalty alternatives, five specified losses, priority rule, and current vulnerable-adult definition read. No actual protected person or loss assumed. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"],["S_MT-P19-S005","Private MCPA damages and limitation cross-reference, §30-14-133. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html; §27-2-211, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Section 133 refers to the timeframe described in §211 as a whole. Section 211(1)(c) and the director/stockholder subsection (3) were read completely. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"],["S_MT-P19-S006","Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77, Montana Supreme Court. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html. Relevant ¶¶18–19.","Fresh full public reproduction of the actual opinion. The Court applied §27-2-211(3) to a statutory action against the majority shareholder, president, and director in that capacity. It did not resolve a modern discovery-trigger dispute. Secondary host; no paid citator. \nJustia Law"],["S_MT-P19-S007","Williams v. Hilger, 77 Mont. 399, 251 P. 524 (1926), https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html; Brown v. Roberts, 78 Mont. 301 (1927), https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1927/78-mont-301.html. Relevant Williams discussion at reproduced lines corresponding to 77 Mont. 403–406; Brown at 78 Mont. 304–308.","Fresh full historical public reproductions. Predecessor statute construed to use creation of liability—not discovery—for the liability-created-by-law branch. Historical corporate statutory-liability cases; modern application to MCPA/Part 20 remains unresolved. \nJustia Law\n+1"],["S_MT-P19-S008","Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 MT 327, Montana Supreme Court official PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op. Relevant ¶¶21–30, printed pp.8–12, zero-based PDF indices 7–11.","Fresh complete 17-page official PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected with PDF screenshots. The underlying ruling was summary judgment. The case applied the ordinary two-year statutory-liability branch and inquiry-notice principles; it did not address §27-2-211(3). \nJudicial Document Service\n+5"],["S_MT-P19-S009","Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1999 MT 222, docket 98-637, Montana Supreme Court. HTML: https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html; PDF: https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780. Exemption discussion at printed pp.9–10, PDF indices 8–9.","Fresh full public opinion reproduction and PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected. Decided September 22, 1999. Historical PSC-only exemption analyzed; MCPA merits and additional damages remained on remand. \nJustia Law\n+2"],["S_MT-P19-S010","Current MCPA exemption, §30-14-105, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Current text covers actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the PSC or state auditor. Used only to qualify the historical reach of Granbois. \nMontana Code Annotated"],["S_MT-P19-S011","Department limitation cross-references, §30-14-135, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html; §27-2-231, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0310/0270-0020-0020-0310.html.","Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Confirms the general Department residual five-year route. Relationship to §30-14-111’s specific five-year discovery route remains remedy-specific. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"]]},{"headers":["PASS-19 claim ID","Relationship to PASS-07","Precise corrected or qualifying claim","Source and confidence"],"index":9,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["PASS-19 claim ID","Relationship to PASS-07","Precise corrected or qualifying claim","Source and confidence"],["S_MT-P19-C001","Qualifies P7-C007/C008","Unauthorized imposition and unauthorized receipt are alternative §2010(4)(g) triggers, but the return measure is all fees actually received.","S001 §2010(4)(g). High."],["S_MT-P19-C002","Corrects Example 1","If $20 was imposed but unpaid, received fees and conditional return equal $255; if actually received, they equal $275.","S001. High arithmetic and textual predicate."],["S_MT-P19-C003","Corrects Example 2","Assuming prior $300 was received, a posted-but-unpaid duplicate leaves the return base at $300; actual receipt produces $330.","S001. High, conditional on posting constituting imposition."],["S_MT-P19-C004","Qualifies P7-C011","Part 20 does not define bona fide error, assign its burden, prescribe cure, or make configuration/recurrence categorical.","S001. High bounded negative."],["S_MT-P19-C005","Replaces E5 predicate","Section 111 uses the exact sequence “is using, has used, or is about to knowingly use”; no universal knowledge element is added beyond the text without construction.","S003 §111(1). High."],["S_MT-P19-C006","Replaces E5 procedure","Ordinary injunction notice must generally state relief, use §115 service, and precede the hearing by at least 20 days; TROs use §27-19-315’s separate route.","S003. High."],["S_MT-P19-C007","Replaces E6 vulnerable-adult row","The additional vulnerable-adult penalty uses alternative knowledge and specified-loss branches; private §133 damages receive priority.","S004 §144. High."],["S_MT-P19-C008","Qualifies P7-C017","Section 2015(8) says qualifying enumerated violators shall be fined up to $5,000 each; forum, process, and classification remain unresolved in that section.","S002 §2015(8). High text; procedural limits held."],["S_MT-P19-C009","Qualifies P7-C031","Private MCPA claims use the applicable branch of §27-2-211, not categorically subsection (1)(c) in every defendant posture.","S005. High."],["S_MT-P19-C010","New limitation qualification","Section 211(3) can supply three years for qualifying statutory-liability or penalty actions against corporate directors or stockholders.","S005 §211(3); S006 ¶¶18–19. High, status- and claim-specific."],["S_MT-P19-C011","Limits P19-C010","The three-year branch does not automatically apply to employees, officers, LLC members, affiliates, or every owner.","S005–S006. High bounded conclusion."],["S_MT-P19-C012","Qualifies trigger language","Historical Montana precedent construed the predecessor so that statutory-liability actions ran from creation of liability, not discovery; current MCPA/Part 20 reach remains unresolved.","S007. High historical holding; modern application held."],["S_MT-P19-C013","Replaces P7-C033","Part 20 claims against an ordinary entity defendant are likely two-year statutory-liability claims; a qualifying director/stockholder defendant may implicate §211(3).","S002, S005–S008. Moderate-high; no Part 20 limitation case."],["S_MT-P19-C014","Corrects P7-C004","Licensed/unlicensed remedy applicability is in §30-14-2015(1), not subsection (2).","S002 §2015(1). High."],["S_MT-P19-C015","Qualifies P7-C024/S014","Granbois, 1999 MT 222, is limited to the historical Part 1/Part 2 and non-PSC-regulated cooperative facts; modern §105 also references the state auditor.","S009–S010. High with historical/current distinction."],["S_MT-P19-C016","Corrects P7-S010 posture","Osterman reviewed summary judgment and applied the ordinary two-year MCPA statutory-liability branch; it did not involve a Rule 12 ruling or §211(3).","S008 ¶¶1, 21–30. High."],["S_MT-P19-C017","Retains P7-C035","Section 111 contains a specific five-year discovery period for the Department injunction action; §135 sends other Department enforcement actions to §231’s residual five years.","S003, S011. High for text; reconciliation claim-specific."]]},{"headers":["Correction issue","Status after PASS-19","Claim IDs","Remaining evidence or next action"],"index":10,"links":[],"row_links":[[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]],"rows":[["Correction issue","Status after PASS-19","Claim IDs","Remaining evidence or next action"],["Unauthorized fee imposition","Answered textually","C001","Actual account communication and imposition facts."],["Fees actually received","Answered textually","C001–C003","Payment, reversal, refund, and fee classification records."],["Example 1 $255/$275 branches","Corrected","C002","Whether $20 was actually collected."],["Example 2 $300/$330 branches","Corrected","C003","Whether posting was an imposition and whether money was received."],["Bona-fide-error definition","Unresolved","C004","Controlling case, rule, or order."],["Bona-fide-error burden","Unresolved","C004","Controlling authority; no burden assigned by hypothetical."],["Bona-fide-error cure or procedures","Unresolved","C004","Same."],["Public injunction substantive predicate","Corrected","C005","Controlling knowledge construction, if litigated."],["Injunction notice and service","Answered","C006","Actual hearing and service dates."],["TRO route","Answered in statutory framework","C006","Actual ex parte showing and certification."],["Vulnerable-adult penalty alternatives","Corrected","C007","Actual vulnerable-adult status, direction, causation, and loss."],["§142 civil versus criminal routes","Preserved and clarified","C007–C008","Actual public action or conviction."],["Part 20 $5,000 fine","Text answered; procedure unresolved","C008","Forum, initiating authority, classification, and collection process."],["Ordinary private MCPA limitation","Qualified","C009","Actual defendant and claim."],["Director/stockholder three-year branch","Answered conditionally","C010–C012","Corporate status, sued capacity, statutory liability or penalty, and trigger."],["Employees, affiliates, LLC members","Not automatically covered","C011","Entity form and status-specific law."],["Part 20 direct limitation","Partial","C013","Controlling Part 20 decision and actual defendant."],["All-fees-return limitation","Unresolved","C013","Affirmative claim theory, remedy classification, and accrual."],["C004 pinpoint","Corrected","C014","None."],["Granbois citation and scope","Corrected","C015","No full paid-citator or remand-record review."],["Osterman posture and page range","Corrected","C016","No full subsequent-treatment audit."],["P7 federal §6104 source gap","Unchanged/held","—","No new federal fetch was used to alter PASS-07’s recorded source status."],["Post-2025 comprehensive session audit","Not completed","All","Separate currentness pass if required."],["Actual provider, contract, consumer, court, or order","Not examined","All","Private or entity-specific records remain unavailable and outside scope."]]}],"claims":[{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C001","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C001","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies P7-C007/C008","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Unauthorized imposition and unauthorized receipt are alternative §2010(4)(g) triggers, but the return measure is all fees actually received.","Source and confidence":"S001 §2010(4)(g). High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C002","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C002","Relationship to PASS-07":"Corrects Example 1","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"If $20 was imposed but unpaid, received fees and conditional return equal $255; if actually received, they equal $275.","Source and confidence":"S001. High arithmetic and textual predicate."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C003","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C003","Relationship to PASS-07":"Corrects Example 2","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Assuming prior $300 was received, a posted-but-unpaid duplicate leaves the return base at $300; actual receipt produces $330.","Source and confidence":"S001. High, conditional on posting constituting imposition."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C004","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C004","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies P7-C011","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Part 20 does not define bona fide error, assign its burden, prescribe cure, or make configuration/recurrence categorical.","Source and confidence":"S001. High bounded negative."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C005","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C005","Relationship to PASS-07":"Replaces E5 predicate","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Section 111 uses the exact sequence “is using, has used, or is about to knowingly use”; no universal knowledge element is added beyond the text without construction.","Source and confidence":"S003 §111(1). High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C006","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C006","Relationship to PASS-07":"Replaces E5 procedure","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Ordinary injunction notice must generally state relief, use §115 service, and precede the hearing by at least 20 days; TROs use §27-19-315’s separate route.","Source and confidence":"S003. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C007","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C007","Relationship to PASS-07":"Replaces E6 vulnerable-adult row","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"The additional vulnerable-adult penalty uses alternative knowledge and specified-loss branches; private §133 damages receive priority.","Source and confidence":"S004 §144. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C008","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C008","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies P7-C017","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Section 2015(8) says qualifying enumerated violators shall be fined up to $5,000 each; forum, process, and classification remain unresolved in that section.","Source and confidence":"S002 §2015(8). High text; procedural limits held."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C009","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C009","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies P7-C031","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Private MCPA claims use the applicable branch of §27-2-211, not categorically subsection (1)(c) in every defendant posture.","Source and confidence":"S005. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C010","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C010","Relationship to PASS-07":"New limitation qualification","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Section 211(3) can supply three years for qualifying statutory-liability or penalty actions against corporate directors or stockholders.","Source and confidence":"S005 §211(3); S006 ¶¶18–19. High, status- and claim-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C011","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C011","Relationship to PASS-07":"Limits P19-C010","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"The three-year branch does not automatically apply to employees, officers, LLC members, affiliates, or every owner.","Source and confidence":"S005–S006. High bounded conclusion."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C012","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C012","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies trigger language","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Historical Montana precedent construed the predecessor so that statutory-liability actions ran from creation of liability, not discovery; current MCPA/Part 20 reach remains unresolved.","Source and confidence":"S007. High historical holding; modern application held."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C013","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C013","Relationship to PASS-07":"Replaces P7-C033","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Part 20 claims against an ordinary entity defendant are likely two-year statutory-liability claims; a qualifying director/stockholder defendant may implicate §211(3).","Source and confidence":"S002, S005–S008. Moderate-high; no Part 20 limitation case."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C014","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C014","Relationship to PASS-07":"Corrects P7-C004","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Licensed/unlicensed remedy applicability is in §30-14-2015(1), not subsection (2).","Source and confidence":"S002 §2015(1). High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C015","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C015","Relationship to PASS-07":"Qualifies P7-C024/S014","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Granbois, 1999 MT 222, is limited to the historical Part 1/Part 2 and non-PSC-regulated cooperative facts; modern §105 also references the state auditor.","Source and confidence":"S009–S010. High with historical/current distinction."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C016","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C016","Relationship to PASS-07":"Corrects P7-S010 posture","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Osterman reviewed summary judgment and applied the ordinary two-year MCPA statutory-liability branch; it did not involve a Rule 12 ruling or §211(3).","Source and confidence":"S008 ¶¶1, 21–30. High."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"claim_id":"S_MT-P19-C017","area_numbers":[66],"area_assignment_method":"task_scope_fallback","researcher_record":{"PASS-19 claim ID":"S_MT-P19-C017","Relationship to PASS-07":"Retains P7-C035","Precise corrected or qualifying claim":"Section 111 contains a specific five-year discovery period for the Department injunction action; §135 sends other Department enforcement actions to §231’s residual five years.","Source and confidence":"S003, S011. High for text; reconciliation claim-specific."},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"}],"sources":[{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S001","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S001","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act, §30-14-2010, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0100/0300-0140-0200-0100.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (4)(a)–(g).","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML, accessed October 26, 2026 Pacific/UTC. Complete section read. Establishes imposition/receipt trigger, bona-fide-error exception, and all-fees-received measure. It does not define bona fide error or assign burden. \nMontana Code Annotated"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S002","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S002","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Part 20 remedies and fine, §30-14-2015, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0200/section_0150/0300-0140-0200-0150.html. Relevant subsections: (1), (2), and (8).","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Corrects C004 to subsection (1) and preserves exact “shall be fined” text. The section does not itself identify the subsection (8) procedure or classification. \nMontana Code Annotated"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S003","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0150/0300-0140-0010-0150.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0020/section_0010/0270-0190-0020-0010.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0030/section_0150/0270-0190-0030-0150.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S003","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Department injunction route, Montana Legislature: §30-14-111, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0110/0300-0140-0010-0110.html; §30-14-115, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0150/0300-0140-0010-0150.html; §27-19-201, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0020/section_0010/0270-0190-0020-0010.html; §27-19-315, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0190/part_0030/section_0150/0270-0190-0030-0150.html.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Complete material clauses read: exact temporal wording, public interest, five-year discovery provision, 20-day injunction notice, service, venue, court, four-factor TRO standard, and written certification. No actual proceeding or calendar application. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+3"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S004","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0440/0300-0140-0010-0440.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0520/chapter_0030/part_0080/section_0030/0520-0030-0080-0030.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S004","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"MCPA penalties and vulnerable-adult penalty, Montana Legislature: §30-14-142, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0420/0300-0140-0010-0420.html; §30-14-144, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0440/0300-0140-0010-0440.html; vulnerable-adult definition, §52-3-803, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0520/chapter_0030/part_0080/section_0030/0520-0030-0080-0030.html.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Complete relevant penalty alternatives, five specified losses, priority rule, and current vulnerable-adult definition read. No actual protected person or loss assumed. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S005","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S005","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Private MCPA damages and limitation cross-reference, §30-14-133. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0330/0300-0140-0010-0330.html; §27-2-211, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0110/0270-0020-0020-0110.html.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Section 133 refers to the timeframe described in §211 as a whole. Section 211(1)(c) and the director/stockholder subsection (3) were read completely. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S006","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S006","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77, Montana Supreme Court. https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1998/81b65f91-c69d-4804-87ba-8b91137acc64.html. Relevant ¶¶18–19.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh full public reproduction of the actual opinion. The Court applied §27-2-211(3) to a statutory action against the majority shareholder, president, and director in that capacity. It did not resolve a modern discovery-trigger dispute. Secondary host; no paid citator. \nJustia Law"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S007","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html","https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1927/78-mont-301.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S007","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Williams v. Hilger, 77 Mont. 399, 251 P. 524 (1926), https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1926/77-mont-399.html; Brown v. Roberts, 78 Mont. 301 (1927), https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1927/78-mont-301.html. Relevant Williams discussion at reproduced lines corresponding to 77 Mont. 403–406; Brown at 78 Mont. 304–308.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh full historical public reproductions. Predecessor statute construed to use creation of liability—not discovery—for the liability-created-by-law branch. Historical corporate statutory-liability cases; modern application to MCPA/Part 20 remains unresolved. \nJustia Law\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S008","urls":["https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S008","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 MT 327, Montana Supreme Court official PDF. https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=02-028op. Relevant ¶¶21–30, printed pp.8–12, zero-based PDF indices 7–11.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh complete 17-page official PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected with PDF screenshots. The underlying ruling was summary judgment. The case applied the ordinary two-year statutory-liability branch and inquiry-notice principles; it did not address §27-2-211(3). \nJudicial Document Service\n+5"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S009","urls":["https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html","https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S009","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1999 MT 222, docket 98-637, Montana Supreme Court. HTML: https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/1999/acb6cc44-6fa4-4fb0-bdec-39bb94e164b9.html; PDF: https://cases.justia.com/montana/supreme-court/1999-09-22-ACB6CC44-6FA4-4FB0-BDEC-39BB94E164B9.pdf?ts=1462388780. Exemption discussion at printed pp.9–10, PDF indices 8–9.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh full public opinion reproduction and PDF read; relevant pages visually inspected. Decided September 22, 1999. Historical PSC-only exemption analyzed; MCPA merits and additional damages remained on remand. \nJustia Law\n+2"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S010","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S010","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Current MCPA exemption, §30-14-105, Montana Legislature. https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0300-0140-0010-0050.html.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Current text covers actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the PSC or state auditor. Used only to qualify the historical reach of Granbois. \nMontana Code Annotated"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"},{"source_id":"S_MT-P19-S011","urls":["https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html","https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0310/0270-0020-0020-0310.html"],"researcher_record":{"Source ID":"S_MT-P19-S011","Authority, issuer, full literal URL, and pinpoint":"Department limitation cross-references, §30-14-135, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0300/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0350/0300-0140-0010-0350.html; §27-2-231, https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0270/chapter_0020/part_0020/section_0310/0270-0020-0020-0310.html.","Status, actual access, and limits":"Fresh direct official MCA 2025 HTML. Confirms the general Department residual five-year route. Relationship to §30-14-111’s specific five-year discovery route remains remedy-specific. \nMontana Code Annotated\n+1"},"coordinator_verification_status":"not_yet_checked"}],"coverage":[{"topic":"Unauthorized fee imposition","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Unauthorized fee imposition","Status after PASS-19":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C001","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual account communication and imposition facts."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Fees actually received","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Fees actually received","Status after PASS-19":"Answered textually","Claim IDs":"C001–C003","Remaining evidence or next action":"Payment, reversal, refund, and fee classification records."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Example 1 $255/$275 branches","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Example 1 $255/$275 branches","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C002","Remaining evidence or next action":"Whether $20 was actually collected."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Example 2 $300/$330 branches","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Example 2 $300/$330 branches","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C003","Remaining evidence or next action":"Whether posting was an imposition and whether money was received."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Bona-fide-error definition","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Bona-fide-error definition","Status after PASS-19":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C004","Remaining evidence or next action":"Controlling case, rule, or order."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Bona-fide-error burden","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Bona-fide-error burden","Status after PASS-19":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C004","Remaining evidence or next action":"Controlling authority; no burden assigned by hypothetical."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Bona-fide-error cure or procedures","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Bona-fide-error cure or procedures","Status after PASS-19":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C004","Remaining evidence or next action":"Same."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Public injunction substantive predicate","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Public injunction substantive predicate","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C005","Remaining evidence or next action":"Controlling knowledge construction, if litigated."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Injunction notice and service","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Injunction notice and service","Status after PASS-19":"Answered","Claim IDs":"C006","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual hearing and service dates."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"TRO route","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"TRO route","Status after PASS-19":"Answered in statutory framework","Claim IDs":"C006","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual ex parte showing and certification."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Vulnerable-adult penalty alternatives","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Vulnerable-adult penalty alternatives","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C007","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual vulnerable-adult status, direction, causation, and loss."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"§142 civil versus criminal routes","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"§142 civil versus criminal routes","Status after PASS-19":"Preserved and clarified","Claim IDs":"C007–C008","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual public action or conviction."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Part 20 $5,000 fine","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Part 20 $5,000 fine","Status after PASS-19":"Text answered; procedure unresolved","Claim IDs":"C008","Remaining evidence or next action":"Forum, initiating authority, classification, and collection process."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Ordinary private MCPA limitation","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Ordinary private MCPA limitation","Status after PASS-19":"Qualified","Claim IDs":"C009","Remaining evidence or next action":"Actual defendant and claim."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Director/stockholder three-year branch","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Director/stockholder three-year branch","Status after PASS-19":"Answered conditionally","Claim IDs":"C010–C012","Remaining evidence or next action":"Corporate status, sued capacity, statutory liability or penalty, and trigger."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Employees, affiliates, LLC members","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Employees, affiliates, LLC members","Status after PASS-19":"Not automatically covered","Claim IDs":"C011","Remaining evidence or next action":"Entity form and status-specific law."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Part 20 direct limitation","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Part 20 direct limitation","Status after PASS-19":"Partial","Claim IDs":"C013","Remaining evidence or next action":"Controlling Part 20 decision and actual defendant."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"All-fees-return limitation","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"All-fees-return limitation","Status after PASS-19":"Unresolved","Claim IDs":"C013","Remaining evidence or next action":"Affirmative claim theory, remedy classification, and accrual."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"C004 pinpoint","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"C004 pinpoint","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C014","Remaining evidence or next action":"None."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Granbois citation and scope","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Granbois citation and scope","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C015","Remaining evidence or next action":"No full paid-citator or remand-record review."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Osterman posture and page range","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Osterman posture and page range","Status after PASS-19":"Corrected","Claim IDs":"C016","Remaining evidence or next action":"No full subsequent-treatment audit."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"P7 federal §6104 source gap","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"P7 federal §6104 source gap","Status after PASS-19":"Unchanged/held","Claim IDs":"—","Remaining evidence or next action":"No new federal fetch was used to alter PASS-07’s recorded source status."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Post-2025 comprehensive session audit","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Post-2025 comprehensive session audit","Status after PASS-19":"Not completed","Claim IDs":"All","Remaining evidence or next action":"Separate currentness pass if required."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"},{"topic":"Actual provider, contract, consumer, court, or order","researcher_record":{"Correction issue":"Actual provider, contract, consumer, court, or order","Status after PASS-19":"Not examined","Claim IDs":"All","Remaining evidence or next action":"Private or entity-specific records remain unavailable and outside scope."},"coordinator_acceptance":"not_yet_reviewed"}],"annotations":{},"corrections":[],"resolved_corrections":[],"review_history":[]}