Which place’s debt rules apply—and who can help?

S_MT PASS-07 — Montana Part 20/Part 21 provider enforcement, private remedies, voidness, fee return, and remedy-specific limitations

Fresh research session: October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC Actual model/mode: GPT-5.6 Sol Pro, regular Chat Relationship to prior work: Distinct enforcement/remedies component following the reviewed P1–P3 record. This is not an independent review. The saved P4 funds, P5 security, and P6 agreements analyses remain unreviewed and are not treated as accepted premises.

Component status: PARTIAL. The operative statutory enforcement routes, Part 20 voidness and express private remedy, Part 21 public and MCPA remedies, current core limitation provisions, administrative-review rules, and principal Montana appellate standards are established. The exact limitation applicable to an affirmative Part 20 fee-return claim, defensive voidness, Part 21 public actions, current administrative discipline, bond or policy claims, and several unit-of-violation and overlap questions remain unresolved.

Executive conclusions

1. Part 20 creates its own express private remedy. A person harmed by a Part 20 violation may recover actual and consequential damages or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation, plus costs and attorney fees. Equitable relief and class actions are expressly authorized. These remedies are cumulative and nonexclusive. Every Part 20 violation is also an unfair or deceptive act under the Montana Consumer Protection Act, but the Part 20 and MCPA routes retain different standing, class, damages, enhancement, and limitation rules. Montana Code Annotated
2. Part 20’s unauthorized-payment clause is narrower and more powerful than a simple overcharge refund. If a covered service imposes any unauthorized fee or charge or receives unauthorized funds or payments—unless resulting from a bona fide error—the DMP is void and the service must return all fees received from or on behalf of the consumer. The text does not limit return to the unauthorized increment, but it also does not say “return all consumer principal.” No cure period, notice requirement, compliance-system defense, prompt-correction rule, or burden-of-proof standard for “bona fide error” appears in the section. Montana Code Annotated
3. Part 21 does not create a separate fixed-damages private action. The attorney general or an eligible county attorney may obtain injunctions, restitution, reasonable attorney fees, and investigation and litigation costs. A debtor receives the remedies available under Part 1 of the Montana Consumer Protection Act and other state law. Consequently, a private Part 21 damages claim ordinarily must satisfy the MCPA’s consumer, causation, and ascertainable-loss requirements unless another cause of action applies. Montana Code Annotated
4. Current private MCPA relief is sharply structured. The consumer may recover ascertainable loss or $500, whichever is greater; may not proceed as a class under §30-14-133; may receive discretionary enhancement up to three times the ascertainable-loss amount when actual damages do not exceed $100,000; and may not recover punitive damages under that section. Attorney fees are discretionary, subject to a $250 hourly cap, and unavailable when actual damages recovered are at least $100,000. Montana Code Annotated+1
5. There is no single Montana enforcement deadline. Private MCPA claims expressly use the two-year statutory-liability period. A Part 20 express damages action is also likely governed by that two-year period because it is a liability created by statute, but no controlling Part 20 decision was located. The Department’s specific §30-14-111 injunction route has a five-year discovery-based limit, while general Department enforcement actions are cross-referenced to the five-year residual period after accrual. Administrative review of a final contested-case order generally requires a petition within 30 days after service. Montana Code Annotated+3
6. An OCP complaint is not a private lawsuit, exhaustion requirement, or verified tolling event. The public materials describe a discretionary complaint-review and referral process, and the complaint form states that OCP is not the consumer’s attorney. No statute read in this pass makes filing an OCP complaint a prerequisite to suit or pauses a limitation period. Montana Department of Justice+1

A. Provider classification and enforcement architecture

A1. Part 20 coverage remains activity-based

Part 20 reaches a person providing or offering a DMP to Montana residents. A DMP is the defined written arrangement under which a credit counseling service receives consumer funds to distribute to creditors. “Person” includes qualifying nonprofits. Montana attorneys and CPAs receive only the statute’s conditional incidental-service exclusion, and debt collectors are excluded only if they do not advertise or hold themselves out as credit counseling services. A nonprofit, attorney affiliation, remote headquarters, processor, or counseling label is therefore not itself a remedy exemption. Montana Code Annotated+1

Part 20’s remedies expressly apply to licensed providers and to unlicensed persons to whom Part 20 applies. Thus, lack of a license does not avoid consumer liability. The claimant must still prove that the defendant and activity fall within Part 20. Montana Code Annotated

Administrative licensing discipline

The Department of Justice may refuse, suspend, or revoke a Part 20 license when the applicant or licensee fails to satisfy the licensing conditions in §30-14-2004(1)–(3) or applicable departmental rules. The text does not say that every violation elsewhere in Part 20 automatically causes administrative suspension or revocation. Those other violations remain subject to the express private and public remedies in §30-14-2015 and Part 1 of the MCPA. Montana Code Annotated+1

When a license action proceeds as a contested case, Montana’s Administrative Procedure Act supplies notice, hearing, final-order, emergency-suspension, and judicial-review rules. A timely and sufficient renewal application ordinarily continues the existing license until the agency’s final determination and expiration of the judicial-review period. Summary suspension is permitted only when the agency incorporates an imperative-public-welfare finding and promptly institutes proceedings. Montana Code Annotated+2

A2. Part 21 remains the noncustodial settlement branch

Part 21 covers a compensated provider that provides or holds itself out as providing settlement services and that, in its usual and regular course, does not hold, receive, or disburse debtor funds in connection with the service. It excludes an entity subject to Part 20 and contains conditional professional and institutional exclusions. Montana Code Annotated

Part 21 does not contain an express administrative license-suspension or revocation section comparable to §30-14-2004(4). It instead uses annual filing requirements, substantive prohibitions, direct attorney-general or county-attorney enforcement, assurances of discontinuance, and incorporation of Part 1 MCPA remedies. A provider’s absence from, or removal from, an operational registration list cannot be equated with a formal adjudication unless the governing order or procedure is actually read. Montana Code Annotated+1

A3. Model-by-remedy matrix

Claims: S_MT-P7-C001–C006, C021–C025, C038–C040.

B. Part 20 unauthorized-fee voidness and fee-return architecture

B1. Exact trigger

Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) applies if a credit counseling service:

• Imposes any fee or other charge not authorized by §30-14-2010; or
• Receives any funds or other payments not authorized by that section;

unless the event resulted from a bona fide error. Montana Code Annotated

The provision does not require, on its face:

• Consumer reliance.
• A minimum dollar amount.
• A willful or knowing act.
• Prior notice to the provider.
• A demand for correction.
• A chance to cure.
• Proof of consequential damage.

B2. Exact consequences

When the predicate is met and the bona-fide-error exception does not apply:

1. The DMP is void.
2. The service must return all fees received from or on behalf of the consumer.

“All fees” is broader than merely refunding the unauthorized increment. A provider that collected five previously authorized monthly fees and then imposed an unauthorized charge cannot assume that only the final charge must be returned.

But the command says “all fees,” not “all funds.” It therefore does not itself answer the disposition of:

• Consumer principal held for creditors.
• Funds already remitted to creditors.
• Interest or bank credits.
• Reversed or rejected payments.
• Third-party funds not characterized as provider fees.

Those funds may be governed by trust, cancellation, restitution, contract, or other law, but that result cannot be imported into §30-14-2010(4)(g) without separate authority.

B3. Bona fide error

The subsection contains the phrase “except as a result of bona fide error,” but it does not define:

• Whether the provider bears the burden.
• Whether reasonable procedures are required.
• Whether legal error qualifies.
• Whether a recurring system configuration can qualify.
• Whether prompt correction is necessary.
• Whether the error must be clerical, mathematical, or technical.
• Whether the exception prevents only voidness or every other remedy.

No controlling Montana opinion interpreting this Part 20 phrase was located in the targeted searches. Federal bona-fide-error doctrines from unrelated statutes may not be imported automatically.

The safest bounded construction is:

• If the provider proves the event resulted from a qualifying bona fide error, the automatic voidness and all-fee-return consequence in subsection (4)(g) does not attach.
• That does not establish that the provider may retain the erroneous payment.
• It does not erase a contract correction obligation, actual loss, another Part 20 violation, MCPA liability, or public enforcement that independently satisfies its elements.

B4. Relationship to the Part 20 private remedy

Section 30-14-2015 separately makes a violator liable to a person harmed for:

max⁡(actual damages+consequential damages, $500)\max(\text{actual damages}+\text{consequential damages},\ $500)max(actual damages+consequential damages, $500)for each violation, plus costs and attorney fees. It also permits equitable or injunctive relief and a class action. Montana Code Annotated

The statutes do not expressly state how a court must combine:

• Return of all fees under §30-14-2010(4)(g).
• Actual damages that include those same fees.
• Consequential damages.
• The $500 statutory floor.
• Public restitution.
• Amounts recovered from a bond, insurer, processor, or creditor.

The remedies are cumulative and nonexclusive, but cumulative legal theories do not necessarily permit the same $1 of loss to be paid twice. Any adjudication must identify whether fee return is rescissionary or restorative and credit overlapping compensatory amounts. No Montana provider-statute decision resolving that accounting was found.

C. Part 20 express private and public remedies

C1. Private claimant and predicates

The statute uses “person harmed”, not only “consumer.” Part 20’s underlying consumer and DMP definitions still limit the regulated transaction, but no controlling decision was found defining the outer boundary of who may be a “person harmed.”

A private claimant must establish:

• The defendant was subject to Part 20.
• A Part 20 violation occurred.
• The claimant was harmed by that violation.
• The claimed actual or consequential loss was causally connected.
• The requested number of “violations” is supported rather than duplicative labeling of one act.

The section does not separately require common-law reliance. For a misrepresentation-based theory, however, the claimant may need to show that the representation caused the asserted harm.

C2. Available relief

Part 20 provides:

• Actual damages.
• Consequential damages.
• A $500 floor when actual plus consequential damages are less than $500.
• The comparison separately “for each violation.”
• Costs.
• Attorney fees.
• Equitable relief.
• Injunctive relief.
• Class-action relief.
• Cumulative and nonexclusive remedies. Montana Code Annotated

The section does not establish:

• A punitive-damages award under Part 20 itself.
• Treble damages.
• A provider cure defense.
• A pre-suit demand.
• A mandatory OCP complaint.
• A fixed attorney-fee hourly rate.
• A statutory cap on Part 20 attorney fees.
• A formula defining when multiple acts count as one or several violations.

General punitive damages might be available on a separately pleaded and proven tort involving actual fraud or actual malice, subject to Montana’s clear-and-convincing standard and punitive-damages limits. Part 20’s nonexclusive-remedy wording alone does not establish those tort predicates. Montana Code Annotated+1

C3. Public enforcement and specific fine

Every Part 20 violation is declared an unfair or deceptive act and a violation of §30-14-103. The Department, attorney general, or county attorney may act on behalf of Montana residents who suffered loss or harm and seek Part 1 remedies. Montana Code Annotated

Section 30-14-2015(8) separately authorizes a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation for only three identified categories:

1. Engaging in credit counseling in Montana without a license.
2. Failing to maintain a separate trust account.
3. Failing to maintain records required by Part 20 or departmental rule.

The provision calls this a “fine,” but it does not itself classify the fine as criminal, prescribe a mandatory amount, or expressly identify the collection procedure. It should not be conflated with the separate criminal provision in the general MCPA.

D. Part 21 enforcement and cancellation-refund boundary

D1. Public enforcement

The attorney general, or a county attorney where the provider does business or the debtor resides, may bring an action for violations of §§30-14-2102 and 2103. The court may issue any order necessary to remedy the violation, including:

• Injunction.
• Restitution.
• Reasonable attorney fees.
• Investigation costs.
• Litigation costs. Montana Code Annotated

No fixed statutory cap is placed on restitution in §30-14-2104; the recoverable amount depends on the proven violation, loss, and remedy.

D2. Assurances of discontinuance

The attorney general or county attorney may accept an assurance of discontinuance. Under the Part 21 text, an assurance may include:

• Investigation costs.
• An escrow arrangement.
• Restitution.

Violation of the assurance can support a civil penalty of up to $10,000. The matter may be reopened at any time. Montana Code Annotated

The general Part 1 assurance statute says that a court-approved assurance under that statute is not an admission and may be reopened in the public interest. Part 21’s separate assurance provision does not itself repeat the “not an admission” wording. An actual assurance or consent judgment must therefore be read before describing it as containing or denying admissions. Montana Code Annotated

D3. Private debtor remedies

A Part 21 violation is a §30-14-103 violation, and the debtor is entitled to remedies under Part 1 and other Montana law. Part 21 does not itself provide:

• A separate $500-per-violation floor.
• Consequential damages as an express category.
• A private Part 21 class action.
• Automatic trebling.
• Punitive damages.
• Mandatory private attorney fees.

A private MCPA claimant generally must satisfy §30-14-133’s separate elements and limits.

D4. Cancellation-service-fee refund

When the debtor cancels before completion, §30-14-2103(2) requires, on the debtor’s request, a refund of 50% of collected but unrefunded service fees allocated pro rata to accounts without a settlement offer. Setup fees are excluded from that particular Montana refund requirement. Montana Code Annotated

That clause does not:

• Establish that the fee was lawfully earned or collected.
• Legalize a federally premature fee.
• Make a setup fee nonrefundable under every other law.
• Preclude restitution, MCPA damages, contract relief, or other state remedies.
• Supply a refund deadline.
• Define “settlement offer.”
• Establish how to treat an expired, rejected, unaffordable, or conditional offer.
• Establish that a refund under the subsection is the consumer’s exclusive remedy.

E. Montana Consumer Protection Act interaction

E1. Scope and regulated conduct

The MCPA defines a consumer as a person purchasing or leasing goods, services, real property, or information primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. “Trade” and “commerce” broadly include advertising, offering, sale, and distribution of services or property that directly or indirectly affect Montana people. Montana Code Annotated

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce are unlawful. Montana gives due consideration and weight to FTC and federal-court interpretations, while the Department may adopt additional rules. Montana Code Annotated+1

The official current ARM search rendering for ARM 23.19.101 identifies as deceptive, among other things, misrepresenting affiliation, benefits, price, rights, remedies, or obligations; failing to disclose material conditions; and failing to disclose the seller’s legal identity and address. The official direct rule-body route returned HTTP 405, so that source remains search-rendered rather than a freshly opened authenticated body. Montana Administrative Rules+1

E2. Regulated-activity exemption is narrow

Section 30-14-105 exempts actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the Public Service Commission or state auditor, and innocent publication or dissemination of advertising. It is not a blanket exemption for every regulated business, professional, licensed entity, attorney, nonprofit, bank affiliate, or DOJ registrant. Montana Code Annotated

In Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, the Montana Supreme Court treated the exemption narrowly and rejected the proposition that merely being subject to some regulation automatically removes the conduct from the MCPA. The case remanded rather than finally adjudicating the underlying MCPA merits. Justia Law+1

E3. Private standing, causation, and ascertainable loss

Section 30-14-133 requires:

1. A consumer.
2. An unlawful practice.
3. An ascertainable loss of money or property.
4. Loss resulting from the unlawful practice. Montana Code Annotated

Montana decisions describe an unfair act as one that offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious. Justia Law

In Anderson v. ReconTrust, the court required factual allegations connecting the challenged conduct to an ascertainable loss. The statute does not use “reliance” as a universal standalone element, but where the theory is a deceptive representation, detrimental reliance or equivalent causal facts may be necessary to show that the representation produced the loss. Justia Law

Norris v. Olson likewise identifies consumer status, an unlawful practice, causation, and ascertainable loss as the private MCPA elements. Justia Law

E4. Private MCPA damages and fees

The current statute provides:

base private award=max⁡(ascertainable loss,$500)\text{base private award}=\max(\text{ascertainable loss},$500)base private award=max(ascertainable loss,$500)The court may, in its discretion, award up to three times the ascertainable-loss amount when actual damages do not exceed $100,000. The enhancement is not written as an additional three multiples added on top of the underlying award.

The statute now expressly provides:

• No private MCPA class action under §30-14-133.
• No punitive damages under that section.
• Equitable relief may be granted.
• Prevailing-party attorney fees are discretionary.
• Attorney fees may not exceed $250 per hour.
• No attorney-fee award when the consumer recovers actual damages of at least $100,000.
• A court may award a pro se consumer fees at its discretion. Montana Code Annotated+1

These MCPA limits do not erase the separate Part 20 class-action and attorney-fee provisions when Part 20 independently applies.

E5. Public MCPA remedies

The Department may seek an injunction when it has reason to believe a person has knowingly used, is using, or is about to use an unlawful practice and the proceeding is in the public interest. The state need not post an injunction bond. Montana Code Annotated

A court may restore money or property acquired through an unlawful practice, appoint a receiver, or revoke a license or certificate authorizing the defendant to engage in business. In a receivership, damaged persons who prove damage may participate with general creditors, but only to the extent of out-of-pocket losses. Montana Code Annotated+1

The Department may issue civil investigative demands, subpoena documents and testimony, administer oaths, and conduct investigative hearings. A CID recipient seeking to extend, modify, or set aside the demand must petition by the return date or within 20 days after service, whichever period is shorter. Montana Code Annotated+1

A county attorney may assist the Department or initiate and prosecute a Part 1 action in the same manner and must notify the Department of filing and disposition. Montana Code Annotated

E6. Civil fines and criminal boundary

The MCPA provides distinct sanctions:

A one-year maximum sentence falls within Montana’s definition of a misdemeanor. The general criminal limitation is one year after commission for a misdemeanor, subject to the statute’s continuing-course and commencement provisions. This does not make every Part 20, Part 21, or MCPA violation criminal; the fraudulent-course and conviction predicates must be established. Montana Code Annotated+1

F. Auditable remedy and amount table

Claims: S_MT-P7-C007–C020, C026–C037.

G. Remedy-specific limitations, accrual, and review deadlines

G1. Private MCPA claim

Section 30-14-133 now expressly states that an action must be commenced within the period in §27-2-211. That provision supplies a two-year period for a liability created by statute. Montana Code Annotated+1

The general accrual rule provides that a claim accrues when all elements exist and the right to maintain the action is complete. Ignorance ordinarily does not delay accrual unless another statute provides otherwise. Discovery postponement for injury to person or property is limited to injuries that are self-concealing by nature or where the defendant took action preventing discovery. Montana Code Annotated

In Osterman v. Sears, the Montana Supreme Court held that an MCPA claim is a statutory liability governed by §27-2-211 and applied Montana’s inquiry-notice and concealment principles. The current statute now independently cross-references §27-2-211, making the two-year classification express. Judicial Document Service+2

G2. Part 20 express damages and fee-return claims

Section 30-14-2015 contains no express limitation period. An affirmative action for statutory Part 20 damages is likely a liability created by statute and therefore subject to §27-2-211’s two-year period. That conclusion is strongly supported by Osterman’s statutory-liability analysis but was not located in a controlling case specifically construing §30-14-2015.

The following remain unresolved:

• Whether an affirmative action solely to enforce the all-fee-return clause receives the same two-year treatment.
• Whether voidness may be raised defensively after an affirmative recovery period expires.
• Accrual when an unauthorized recurring charge is concealed.
• Whether each charge creates a separate accrual date.
• Class-action tolling.
• Equitable tolling or estoppel in a provider-statute case.

No universal discovery rule should be assumed.

G3. Part 21 private remedies

A debtor proceeding under private MCPA §30-14-133 has the same express two-year period. A separate contract, fraud, restitution, or other state-law claim could have a different period, but those causes are outside this pass.

The direct Part 21 cancellation-refund duty does not contain its own limitation provision. If enforced through §30-14-133, the two-year MCPA period applies; whether another theory is available, and when the refund claim accrues after cancellation and request, remain unresolved.

G4. Department and other public actions

Two current provisions must be kept distinct:

• A Department injunction action under §30-14-111 may be brought within five years on discovery of the alleged violation.
• Section 30-14-135 states that Department enforcement actions under Part 1 are subject to §27-2-231, the five-year residual period after accrual. Montana Code Annotated+2

No controlling decision reconciling every application of those provisions was located. The specific §111 discovery rule governs the action described in that section; other Department remedies require claim-specific analysis.

Part 21’s direct attorney-general and county-attorney provision contains no express filing period. The five-year residual provision may be relevant, but no controlling Part 21 case was found. The phrase allowing a Part 21 matter to be reopened “at any time” after an assurance does not necessarily eliminate every limitation or due-process defense to a later penalty action.

G5. Criminal prosecution

The fraudulent-course offense under §30-14-142 allows up to one year of imprisonment and therefore falls within Montana’s misdemeanor definition. The general misdemeanor limitation is one year after commission, subject to the continuing-course rule and the statute’s commencement provisions. Montana Code Annotated+1

No standalone Part 20 or Part 21 criminal offense was identified.

G6. Administrative license proceedings and judicial review

No Part 20-specific deadline for commencing a license-denial, suspension, or revocation proceeding was located. Civil and criminal limitation periods may not be imported automatically into administrative discipline.

For a final written contested-case decision:

• Administrative remedies generally must be exhausted.
• An aggrieved party ordinarily must petition for judicial review within 30 days after service of the final decision.
• A timely rehearing request changes the trigger as provided by §2-4-702.
• Filing for review does not automatically stay the agency decision. Montana Code Annotated

G7. CID challenge

A person served with a civil investigative demand must seek extension, modification, or set-aside relief by the return date or within 20 days after service, whichever is shorter. This is not the deadline for a private damages action. Montana Code Annotated

G8. Tolling and complaint filing

Montana’s limitation title contains separate tolling provisions addressing disability, absence, death, stays, arbitration, and other circumstances, but those provisions were not comprehensively applied in this component. Montana Code Annotated

No provision read here establishes that any of the following tolls a private limitation period:

• Filing an OCP complaint.
• Contacting the provider.
• Participating in informal mediation.
• Waiting for an agency response.
• A provider’s internal investigation.
• A pending registration review.

Limitation and trigger matrix

H. Operational complaint route, orders, and case-law search

H1. Current OCP complaint route

The current official search rendering for the Montana Office of Consumer Protection complaint page says consumers should first attempt to resolve the matter with the business, may submit an online or downloaded complaint, and that OCP evaluates whether it has authority, may provide the business an opportunity to respond, may refer the complaint, and retains complaint information for monitoring. The direct page was not successfully opened in this pass, so this is search-rendered operational evidence. Montana Department of Justice

The official complaint form, OCP-100 revision 8/07, asks for supporting agreements and advertisements, the consumer’s attempts to contact the business, desired relief, and other complaints or proceedings. It states that:

• OCP has discretion to accept, investigate, or resolve a complaint.
• OCP is not the consumer’s attorney.
• No attorney-client relationship is created.
• The consumer authorizes OCP to use the information in performing its duties. Montana Department of Justice+2

These instructions do not create a statutory pre-suit demand, cure period, exhaustion requirement, or tolling rule.

H2. Controlling and materially relevant decisions located

Osterman v. Sears, 2003 MT 327

• Posture: Montana Supreme Court review of dismissal/limitation issues.
• Relevant holding: An MCPA cause of action is a liability created by statute governed by §27-2-211; the court applied accrual and inquiry-notice principles.
• Current significance: The current §30-14-133 now expressly cites §27-2-211, confirming the two-year category.
• Limit: It did not construe Part 20 or Part 21. Judicial Document Service+2

Anderson v. ReconTrust Co., 2017 MT 313

• Posture: Montana Supreme Court review of dismissal.
• Relevant holding: A private MCPA complaint must plead an unlawful practice that caused ascertainable financial or property loss; conclusory allegations without a causal link were inadequate.
• Limit: It was not a debt-management or settlement-provider case. Justia Law

Morrow v. Bank of America, 2014 MT 117

• Posture: Montana Supreme Court certified-question/appellate consideration involving mortgage servicing.
• Relevant holding: MCPA coverage can extend to service-related conduct; the court applied Montana’s unfairness standard and recognized potentially ascertainable consumer injury.
• Limit: It did not construe Parts 20 or 21. Justia Law

Norris v. Olson, 2024 MT 123

• Posture: Montana Supreme Court appeal.
• Relevant holding: Reiterated consumer status, unlawful conduct, causation, and ascertainable loss as private MCPA elements.
• Limit: Not a provider-statute case. Justia Law

Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, 1999 MT 249

• Posture: Montana Supreme Court review.
• Relevant holding: The regulated-activity exemption is not a general immunity merely because an entity is regulated.
• Limit: The court remanded and did not finally adjudicate the underlying consumer claim. Justia Law+1

H3. Provider-specific cases and orders not located

Targeted searches were conducted for:

• 30-14-2010(4)(g)
• 30-14-2015
• 30-14-2103(2)
• 30-14-2104
• Montana debt-management surety and fee-return litigation
• Debt-settlement assurances of discontinuance
• DOJ/OCP final orders and consent judgments
• Bona fide error under the Montana Consumer Debt Management Services Act

No published Montana appellate opinion, publicly indexed final administrative order, assurance, or consent judgment construing those exact provider provisions was located. This is a bounded search result, not proof that no district-court case, unpublished order, closed administrative file, consent matter, or nonindexed public record exists.

No complete paid citator, all-county district docket review, or comprehensive administrative-file index was available.

I. Limited federal enforcement and private-right boundaries

I1. Federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act

The federal private TSR route is much narrower than a Montana state claim. Section 6104 requires:

• A pattern or practice violating an FTC telemarketing rule.
• A person adversely affected.
• More than $50,000 in actual damages for each person, exclusive of interest and costs.
• Filing within three years after discovery.
• Notice to the FTC unless prior notice is infeasible.
• Coordination with a pending federal enforcement action.

The statute preserves other federal and state rights. A TSR violation does not automatically produce a small individual federal private action. U.S. Code

I2. CROA

If actual representations and activities bring the provider within CROA, federal civil liability can include the greater of actual damages or amounts paid, punitive damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. CROA also contains class relief. U.S. Code

The limitation period is generally five years from the violation. A discovery-based extension applies only when a material and willful misrepresentation concerns information required to be disclosed and is material to establishing liability. U.S. Code

No CROA coverage finding is made here.

I3. CFPA

The read Consumer Financial Protection Act provisions authorize Bureau civil actions and certain state attorney-general or regulator public-enforcement actions, subject to statutory coordination and limitation rules. Those provisions do not themselves supply the Montana private remedy analyzed in this report. A categorical conclusion about every possible implied or incorporated federal private claim is held absent a controlling case. U.S. Code+1

J. Bounded examples

All amounts are U.S. dollars. These are statutory-mechanics demonstrations, not predictions of an actual judgment. They assume coverage and proof only where expressly stated.

Example 1 — Unauthorized charge without bona fide error

Facts

• Valid Part 20 DMP initially exists.
• Initial fee collected: $75.
• Six monthly fees collected: 6 × $30 = $180.
• Provider then imposes an unauthorized $20 “processing charge.”
• The charge is a provider fee.
• No bona fide error is established.

Total fees received

$75+$180+$20=$275$75+$180+$20=$275$75+$180+$20=$275Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) consequence

• DMP becomes void.
• Required fee return: $275, not merely the unauthorized $20.

This calculation does not include consumer creditor-payment principal. The statute’s all-fee-return command does not state that principal is part of the $275.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C007–C010.

Example 2 — Bona-fide-error branch

Facts

• Total previously authorized fees: $300.
• Processor accidentally posts a duplicate $30 charge.
• Provider claims bona fide error.

Branch A — provider proves a qualifying bona fide error

The automatic DMP voidness and all-fee-return consequence under subsection (4)(g) does not attach on the current text.

That does not mean the provider may keep the duplicate $30. Correction, contract, MCPA, actual-harm, and other remedies require separate analysis.

Branch B — error is not bona fide

For example, the charge results from a recurring configuration knowingly left in place.

Total fees received:

$300+$30=$330$300+$30=$330$300+$30=$330The subsection’s mandatory consequence is return of all $330 in fees, not only the duplicate $30.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C008–C011.

Example 3 — Part 20 per-violation damages without automatic double counting

Assume a court finds two genuinely distinct Part 20 violations.

Violation A

• Actual damages: $300.
• Consequential damages: $100.

$300+$100=$400$300+$100=$400$300+$100=$400Compare with statutory floor:

max⁡($400,$500)=$500\max($400,$500)=$500max($400,$500)=$500### Violation B

• Actual damages: $700.
• Consequential damages: $200.

$700+$200=$900$700+$200=$900$700+$200=$900Compare with floor:

max⁡($900,$500)=$900\max($900,$500)=$900max($900,$500)=$900### Total if the court treats them as separate, nonoverlapping violations

$500+$900=$1,400$500+$900=$1,400$500+$900=$1,400Costs and attorney fees are separate. If the same dollar loss was counted in both violation calculations, the $1,400 total would require adjustment. The statute does not define the unit of violation or authorize duplicate compensation.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C012–C015.

Example 4 — Fee return and damages overlap

Facts

• Unauthorized-fee clause requires $275 in all-fee return.
• Claimant proves $400 in actual and consequential damages.
• The $400 includes the same $275 in fees plus $125 of separate consequential loss.

Part 20 damages comparison:

max⁡($400,$500)=$500\max($400,$500)=$500max($400,$500)=$500It would be incorrect to announce a guaranteed recovery of:

$275+$500=$775$275+$500=$775$275+$500=$775without deciding overlap. The court would need to determine whether the $275 fee return is separately restorative, whether the $500 floor replaces or supplements overlapping compensation, and how to credit the same $275. The exact combined award is held.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C009, C013–C016, C036.

Example 5 — Private MCPA enhancement and attorney-fee cap

Assumptions

• Ascertainable loss: $2,000.
• Consumer proves all private MCPA elements.
• Actual damages do not exceed $100,000.
• Court exercises maximum enhancement discretion.
• Twenty compensable attorney hours are approved.
• Claimed rate is $325 per hour.

Base money damages:

max⁡($2,000,$500)=$2,000\max($2,000,$500)=$2,000max($2,000,$500)=$2,000Maximum enhanced money-damages figure:

3×$2,000=$6,0003\times $2,000=$6,0003×$2,000=$6,000The enhancement is not calculated as:

$2,000+$6,000$2,000+$6,000$2,000+$6,000Attorney-fee hourly cap:

20×$250=$5,00020\times $250=$5,00020×$250=$5,000Potential structure, if fully awarded:

• Money damages: up to $6,000.
• Attorney fees: up to $5,000 for the approved 20 hours.
• Taxable or allowable costs: separately determined.
• Punitive damages under §30-14-133: $0.

None of those discretionary components is automatic.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C025–C030.

Example 6 — Public restitution versus private recovery

Facts

• Ten consumers each paid $400 obtained through a proven unlawful practice.
• State seeks restoration of those amounts.

Potential public restitution:

10×$400=$4,00010\times $400=$4,00010×$400=$4,000Each consumer may separately analyze a private MCPA claim. If a consumer receives the $400 through public restitution, that same $400 generally cannot simply be counted again as unpaid ascertainable loss without an overlap analysis.

A civil fine, if separately authorized and imposed, is payable as a public sanction rather than compensation to the consumer.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C021–C027, C036.

Example 7 — Part 21 cancellation refund is not exclusive

Assumptions

Collected and unrefunded nonsetup service-fee allocations:

• Debt A, settlement offer received: $300.
• Debt B, no settlement offer: $300.
• Debt C, no settlement offer: $200.

Qualifying no-offer fee base:

$300+$200=$500$300+$200=$500$300+$200=$500Montana cancellation refund:

50%×$500=$25050%\times $500=$25050%×$500=$250The $300 allocated to Debt A is excluded from this subsection’s no-offer calculation. A setup fee is also excluded from this particular state calculation.

The $250 result does not determine whether any of the underlying fees were lawfully earned or collected. A premature federal collection, deceptive representation, or contract violation may support other relief.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C017–C020.

Example 8 — Licensing discipline versus consumer damages

Facts

• A Part 20 licensee no longer satisfies a required licensing condition.
• DOJ serves notice and starts a contested proceeding.
• No consumer loss has yet been shown.

Possible consequences:

• Refusal, suspension, or revocation under §30-14-2004(4), subject to process.
• No automatic private $500 award merely because a licensing condition failed; a Part 20 claimant must be a person harmed.
• Public injunction may still be available if the separate public predicates are met.

If the agency serves a final contested-case decision on “Day 0,” the judicial-review petition ordinarily must be filed within 30 days after service, subject to the rehearing provisions. Filing does not automatically stay the order.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C003–C006, C033–C035.

Example 9 — OCP complaint does not establish tolling

Sequence

• Day 0: Consumer’s private MCPA claim accrues.
• Day 100: Consumer files an OCP complaint.
• OCP requests a business response.
• Consumer waits for the informal process.

No reviewed statute says the OCP filing pauses the two-year private period. Unless another tolling doctrine applies, the private claimant must calculate the court-filing deadline independently.

No exact calendar date is supplied because actual accrual, service, concealment, disability, weekends, holidays, and tolling facts are absent.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C031–C035, C040.

Example 10 — Excluded or expired branch

Coverage failure

A Montana-licensed attorney performs debt advice solely in ordinary professional practice and satisfies the complete Part 21 exclusion. Part 21 liability is not established merely because the advice concerned settlement. MCPA, professional-duty, or contract questions remain separate.

Standing failure

A Part 21 disclosure violation occurs, but the private claimant alleges no loss of money or property caused by it. A private §30-14-133 damages claim is not established, although public enforcement may remain possible.

Time failure

A private MCPA claim is filed after the two-year period with no applicable concealment or tolling facts. An OCP complaint or provider correspondence does not, on the current record, revive it. A public enforcement route may have a different period, but that does not revive the private action.

Claims: S_MT-P7-C001–C002, C023–C025, C031–C040.

K. PASS-07 source register

L. PASS-07 claim register

M. Component coverage and gap table

N. Researcher self-check

Freshly and directly read on October 26, 2026

• Complete materially relevant current published 2025 MCA Part 20 scope, definitions, licensing, DMP voidness, prohibited-practice, and remedy sections.
• Complete materially relevant current published Part 21 definition, requirements, prohibitions, cancellation, and enforcement sections.
• MCPA definitions, prohibited conduct, exemptions, injunction, assurance, CID, investigative power, county-attorney authority, restoration, receivership, private remedies, public limitation, civil and criminal sanctions, and vulnerable-adult provisions.
• Official 2025 SB 488, Chapter 199, including the relevant amendment pages.
• Montana accrual, statutory-liability limitation, residual limitation, administrative-license procedure, judicial-review, criminal-limitation, misdemeanor-definition, and general punitive-damages provisions.
• The official Osterman opinion PDF and relevant pages.
• Full public reproductions of Anderson, Morrow, Norris, and Granbois.
• Federal private TSR, CROA, and limited CFPA enforcement provisions.
• Official OCP complaint-form PDF.

Fresh but search-rendered or access-limited

• ARM 23.19.101 was returned through the official search rendering and shown as effective; direct body routes returned HTTP 405.
• The current OCP complaint page was available through official search rendering, not a successful direct page open.
• Public order and case searches were bounded and did not locate an exact Part 20/Part 21 merits order or published construction.

Reused without changing historical provenance

• Reviewed P1–P3 classification, fee-boundary, federal-timing, and date-correction context.
• P1’s saved C021 as the starting incomplete voidness claim.
• The prior provider-access and scope qualifications.
• No old P1/P2 access was relabeled as fresh merely because the underlying section was revisited in PASS-07.

Expressly not treated as accepted authority

• P4 funds interpretations.
• P5 bond and insurance interpretations.
• P6 agreement and electronic-execution interpretations.

Where a limited cross-reference was necessary, the underlying primary statute was read afresh rather than importing the unreviewed conclusion.

Not read or resolved

• Any actual provider complaint, investigative file, CID, subpoena, assurance, consent judgment, administrative final order, license hearing, or judicial-review petition.
• Any actual consumer contract, account, policy, bond, fee ledger, or provider authorization.
• A complete paid citator, every Montana district-court docket, or every DOJ/OCP administrative file.
• Complete post-2025 legislative, special-session, and rulemaking currentness.
• Full general class-action, appellate, punitive-damages, setoff, satisfaction, receivership, bankruptcy, or surety procedure.
• Exact Part 20 “bona fide error,” unit-of-violation, fee-return limitation, defensive voidness, and double-recovery construction.
• Full TSR, CROA, CFPA, bankruptcy, or federal enforcement dossier.

Exact individual source-fetch timestamps were not exposed and are not invented. No filing, complaint submission, application, regulator contact, provider contact, purchase, account change, private-data access, browser control, other-chat access, local write, legal deadline opinion for an individual matter, provider approval, operational approval, independent review, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, or publication-readiness determination occurred.

REPORT PARTIAL — the focused Montana Part 20/Part 21 enforcement, private-remedies, voidness, fee-return, and remedy-specific-limitations component is completed to the source, procedural, and currentness limits stated above.

END S_MT PASS-07.