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

S_MT PASS-08 — Montana collection-agency/debt-buyer licensing, original-creditor coverage, and state-specific collection conduct

Fresh research session: October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC Mode: GPT-5.6 Sol Pro, regular Chat Relationship to earlier work: Distinct collection-licensing/classification and state-conduct component. This is not an independent review. Nothing below accepts or regenerates the earlier debt-adjustment, DMP, settlement, fee, funds, security, agreement, or provider-remedies work.

Component status: PARTIAL. Montana’s principal activity-specific licensing routes, original-creditor/debt-buyer boundaries, current public verification process, loan-specific conduct restrictions, general state unfair-practices layer, and necessary FDCPA/Regulation F gateways are substantially resolved. Detailed validation, documentation, furnishing, account-level proof, limitations/revival, collection litigation, judgments, garnishment, and full remedies remain open.

I. Executive determination

1. No general standalone Montana “collection agency” license was identified

The current official Montana licensing inventory, published 2025 Code, administrative-rule searches, and regulator materials did not reveal a generally applicable statewide license titled “collection agency license” or “debt buyer license.”

That is a bounded research conclusion, not proof that every debt collector is unlicensed:

• Montana licenses consumer-loan lenders and servicers under the Montana Consumer Loan Act.
• Montana licenses businesses purchasing Montana retail installment contracts as sales finance companies.
• Mortgage servicing, deferred-deposit lending, escrow, and other sectors have separate activity-specific regimes.
• A collector may also need a telemarketing registration, foreign-entity registration, professional license, or another sector license based on its actual conduct.
• Federal FDCPA status does not determine Montana licensing.
• NMLS business-activity labels such as “first-party debt collection” or “third-party debt collection” are not themselves Montana licenses.

The current private-investigator statute’s reference to a “collection agency” merely exempts a collection agency’s incidental investigations from the private-investigator chapter; it does not create or identify a general collection-agency license. Likewise, the foreign-LLC statute’s treatment of collecting debts as an activity that does not alone constitute “transacting business” is a corporate-registration rule, not permission to collect or a substantive exemption from financial-services law. Montana Department of Administration+3

2. The central Montana licensing trigger is the debt’s legal origin and the collector’s activity

A nonexempt entity receiving or accepting payments on a loan originated under the Montana Consumer Loan Act—and keeping the payments or directing them to someone else—is treated by the Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions as a consumer-loan servicer requiring a license. Montana’s statute also says transferred Consumer Loan Act contracts remain governed by that chapter and that a loan “made or collected” in violation by an unlicensed, nonexempt person is void, with no right to collect or retain principal, interest, fees, or charges. Montana Code Annotated+3

That does not mean every account collected from a Montana resident is a Montana Consumer Loan Act loan. BFID currently states that its servicing interpretation applies to loans originated under that Act and not to loans originated by banks or credit unions. BFID also states that utilities, service providers such as doctors and hospitals, and estates are outside the Act. Those are agency interpretations delimiting this particular license; other state and federal collection law can still apply. Montana Department of Administration+1

3. A debt buyer’s title to the account does not answer either state licensing or FDCPA coverage

A buyer of a Montana Consumer Loan Act loan may inherit continuing chapter restrictions and, if it receives or directs payments, the Montana servicing-license requirement. A company that regularly purchases Montana retail installment contracts may instead require a sales-finance-company license. A passive buyer of bank-originated credit-card accounts does not become a Montana Consumer Loan Act licensee solely because it owns the accounts, but it may qualify as a federal “debt collector” under the FDCPA’s principal-purpose definition even if it outsources all direct collection. Montana Code Annotated+4

4. Montana does not appear to have a comprehensive state “mini-FDCPA”

No generally applicable Montana enactment was located that independently establishes all of the familiar federal debt-collection communication rules—such as the 8 a.m.–9 p.m. presumption, the Regulation F seven-calls-in-seven-days presumptions, third-party contact restrictions, represented-consumer restrictions, written cease-contact effect, or electronic opt-out requirements.

Montana’s substantive state layer instead consists principally of:

• Loan-specific charges, receipts, records, payoff, advertising, and licensing rules.
• Retail installment sales restrictions.
• Montana Consumer Protection Act prohibitions against unfair or deceptive conduct.
• Specialized sector statutes.
• Contract, UCC, professional, and general tort law.

The federal FDCPA and Regulation F rules apply only when their own federal definitions and exceptions are met; they are not converted into Montana statutes merely because the consumer lives in Montana. Montana Code Annotated+4

II. Montana licensing and classification

A. Montana Consumer Loan Act

Consumer-purpose threshold

A Montana “consumer loan” is credit offered or extended to an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, generally excluding deferred-deposit loans and residential mortgage loans. Commercial, investment, organizational, or business-purpose obligations are not brought into the Consumer Loan Act merely because the obligor is an individual or later uses a personal account to make payments. Montana Code Annotated+1

Making versus servicing

The licensing prohibition in §32-5-103(1) is written around engaging in the business of making consumer loans for compensation. But three connected authorities support BFID’s servicing interpretation:

1. Transferred Consumer Loan Act contracts remain governed by the chapter.
2. A loan “made or collected” in violation by an unlicensed, nonexempt person is void.
3. BFID’s 2016 memorandum and current guidance say receiving or accepting payments and retaining or directing them is servicing requiring a consumer-loan license. Montana Code Annotated+3

The servicing conclusion is therefore a combination of statutory text and current agency interpretation. It should not be recast as if the statute expressly defines every possible servicing activity.

Statutory exemptions

The Consumer Loan Act exempts:

• Banks.
• Building and loan associations.
• Savings and loan associations.
• Trust companies.
• Credit unions.
• A person making fewer than four consumer loans annually with the person’s own funds, provided the person does not represent that it is licensed and complies with the identified Title 31 provisions. Montana Code Annotated

BFID further states that its Act does not apply to utility providers, medical and similar service providers, estates, or loans originated by depository institutions. That clarification is operational agency guidance and not an amendment to the statutory exemption list. Montana Department of Administration+1

Transfer consequence

A loan contract made under the Act remains governed by the chapter after an authorized transfer. This prevents an acquiring organization from assuming that assignment strips away the Act’s interest, fee, receipt, record, and payoff restrictions. It does not, without more facts, answer whether a passive owner that never receives or directs payments must itself be licensed. Montana Code Annotated

Unlicensed collection consequence

Section 32-5-103(4) states that a loan made or collected in violation by an unlicensed, nonexempt person is void, and that person has no right to collect, receive, or retain principal, interest, fees, or charges. This is a severe loan-specific consequence; it is not a general declaration that every unlicensed third-party collector in Montana loses every debt. The underlying obligation must fall within the Act and the licensing violation must be established. Montana Code Annotated

B. Retail installment contract buyers

A “sales finance company” includes a person engaged in the business of purchasing Montana retail installment contracts. An isolated purchase from the same seller does not necessarily make the purchaser a sales finance company, but regularly acquiring such contracts can require a sales-finance license. Banks and certain institutional entities are exempt from the license requirement while remaining subject to other substantive provisions. Montana Legislature+1

The license:

• Is required for each covered principal or branch location.
• Costs $100 for the principal license and each branch.
• Expires December 31.
• Is nontransferable and nonassignable.
• Does not require a physical Montana office.
• Does not authorize business under an unlicensed alternate name. Montana Code Annotated+2

A buyer of installment contracts therefore cannot decide licensing solely by asking whether it is collecting “its own” accounts. The acquisition model itself may be the licensed activity.

C. Model-by-license, exemption, and nexus matrix

The state classifications above derive from the Consumer Loan Act, BFID’s current servicing interpretation, the Retail Installment Sales Act, and the bounded absence of a general collector-license route. The federal column derives from the FDCPA definitions and controlling federal cases addressed below. Montana Code Annotated+7

III. Entry, renewal, continuity, and public verification

A. Consumer Loan License

The current Montana statutory and BFID operational requirements establish:

• Each covered place of business must be licensed.
• Licenses are nontransferable and nonassignable.
• Initial and renewal fee: $500 per company or branch license.
• License year: calendar year.
• Expiration: December 31.
• Applications and renewals are submitted through NMLS.
• The applicant is subject to general-character and fitness review and specified financial-services licensing and fraud-history criteria.
• Employees do not receive separate Consumer Loan licenses; Montana licenses entities and branches.
• A physical Montana office is not required.
• BFID says there is no Consumer Loan License bond.
• Annual reporting is due February 15, and financial statements are submitted through NMLS after fiscal-year end.
• Consumer document samples and fee disclosures are requested at application and renewal. Montana Code Annotated+3

The current public NMLS checklist compiler is the application-requirements route, and NMLS Consumer Access is the public verification route. No named provider was searched in this pass. Montana does not issue a paper Consumer Loan license, and BFID says there is no requirement to display one. Nationwide Licensing System+2

The precise current late-renewal, reinstatement, deficiency, control-person, and document-upload requirements should be confirmed from the generated Montana Consumer Loan License checklist at the time of an actual application. The public compiler route was located, but a company-specific checklist was not generated or treated as filed.

B. Sales Finance License

BFID likewise routes Sales Finance License applications through NMLS. The statutory fee is $100 for the principal location and each branch; the license expires December 31 and is nontransferable. No named purchaser or account buyer was checked. Montana Code Annotated+2

C. Public complaint and regulator routes

Two regulators have materially different roles:

• The Montana Department of Administration, Division of Banking and Financial Institutions administers Consumer Loan and Sales Finance licensing and examinations.
• The Montana Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Protection receives consumer complaints and administers Montana’s general consumer-protection framework.

NMLS Consumer Access can verify the existence and displayed status of a state financial-services license. An OCP complaint page is not a licensing roster, and a BFID license does not establish compliance with the FDCPA or Montana collection conduct law. Montana Department of Administration+2

BFID’s public enforcement index includes consumer-loan licensing matters but is not an exhaustive debt-collection order database. Older actions may be located through NMLS or historical agency materials. Montana Department of Administration

D. Discipline sufficient to explain market entry

For a licensed or unlicensed person violating the Consumer Loan Act, a rule, or a department order, BFID may:

• Issue notice based on probable cause.
• Provide 14 days from mailing to request an administrative hearing.
• Impose up to $1,000 per violation after admission, noncontest, or finding.
• Order borrower restitution and reimbursement of agency costs.
• Suspend or revoke the right to operate.
• Preserve liability for pre-suspension or pre-revocation conduct. Montana Code Annotated

This is a bounded licensing consequence, not a full private-remedy or limitations analysis.

IV. Montana-specific collection conduct

A. Consumer Loan Act charges and payment handling

For covered Consumer Loan Act loans:

• Interest may not exceed 36% annually, excluding specified authorized charges.
• A deferral charge may be the greater of $15 or 5% of the amount due, capped at $50.
• A late charge may be the greater of $15 or 5% of the past-due amount, capped at $50.
• A late charge may be imposed only once on the same past-due amount.
• No other default fee may be imposed.
• Other fees are forbidden unless the chapter authorizes them, subject to the limited voluntary post-consummation-service provision.
• Splitting a contract to obtain excess fees is forbidden.
• Charging or receiving an excess amount results in forfeiture to the borrower of twice the excess amount. Montana Code Annotated

A licensee must provide a plain, dated, complete receipt for each cash payment, maintain reliable payment records, and, within ten days after full repayment, memorialize satisfaction, release security, and return or mail the canceled note or equivalent instrument as prescribed. Montana Code Annotated

The Act also prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive advertising concerning loan rates, terms, or conditions. It restricts confessions of judgment and incomplete loan instruments and limits contractual attorney fees and dishonored-payment charges. Montana Code Annotated+2

These requirements follow a transferred Consumer Loan Act contract. They are not automatically applicable to medical bills, utility debts, bank-issued cards, or commercial accounts merely because a collection agency is involved.

B. Retail installment contract conduct

For a Montana retail installment contract or retail charge account:

• A delinquency charge may be imposed only after an installment has been in default at least ten days.
• The holder may charge up to $10 per defaulted installment or, alternatively, calculate a fixed delinquency charge expressed as a rate not exceeding 15% of that installment.
• The two methods are alternatives; they are not automatically cumulative.
• Regular contract interest may continue only under the specified simple-interest condition.
• A contract may allow outside-attorney fees up to 15% of the amount due, plus court costs and actual reasonable out-of-pocket delinquency expenses.
• On written request, the holder must provide the prescribed account statement.
• Cash payments require receipts, and full payment triggers acknowledgment and release of security. Montana Code Annotated+1

Violations of specified Retail Installment Sales Act provisions can restrict the holder’s ability to collect finance, delinquency, or collection charges. Full remedy and limitation treatment is reserved for a later pass. Montana Code Annotated

C. Montana Consumer Protection Act

The Montana Consumer Protection Act broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. “Trade” and “commerce” encompass the offering or distribution of services or property directly or indirectly affecting Montana residents. Private “consumer” status is tied to personal, family, or household purposes. Montana Code Annotated+1

The Montana Supreme Court has held that lending and collecting consumer loans are within the MCPA’s trade-or-commerce scope, including collection activity by a bank. Thus, the original-creditor label is not a blanket MCPA exemption. Justia Law

The Act’s regulated-activity exemption is narrow: it covers actions or transactions permitted under laws administered by the Public Service Commission or the state auditor and innocent media dissemination. It does not create a general exemption for banks, attorneys, nonprofits, licensed collectors, debt buyers, or regulated businesses. Montana Code Annotated

The official current ARM search rendering for ARM 23.19.101 identifies conduct such as misstating transaction rights, remedies, or obligations and failing to disclose specified business identity information in advertising as deceptive. The direct official rule body returned HTTP 405, so the complete current text was not independently authenticated through that route. Montana Administrative Rules+1

D. Specialized collection restrictions

Deferred-deposit obligations

For a covered deferred-deposit loan:

• Unauthorized interest or fees are prohibited.
• A returned-check charge is capped at $30 and may be imposed only once.
• That charge is the only permitted late or delinquency charge.
• A collection agency, holder, or agent may not collect the separate bad-check statutory damages identified by the statute.
• Attorney fees and costs are limited to the prevailing-party arrangement stated in the statute. Montana Code Annotated

BFID currently states that Montana has no licensed payday lenders. That operational statement does not resolve whether an old account, an online out-of-state transaction, or an illegally originated account is enforceable. Montana Department of Administration

Repossession

After default, a secured party may proceed judicially or take possession without judicial process only if it can do so without breach of the peace. An agreed assembly demand must designate a reasonably convenient place. This is a state repossession rule, not a comprehensive communications statute. Montana Code Annotated

Ambulance-bill furnishing boundary

For certain ambulance bills transferred to a collection agency, the ambulance service must inform the agency that the bill may not be reported as delinquent. The complete furnishing, dispute, and credit-reporting procedure remains for the later reporting pass. Montana Code Annotated+1

Attorney acquisition of claims

A Montana attorney may not buy a claim with the intent and purpose of bringing an action on it. The law preserves specified situations such as receipt of a claim in payment for services or an antecedent debt where the prohibited purpose is absent. This is a professional-conduct boundary, not a general exemption from the FDCPA. Montana Code Annotated+1

E. State-conduct-by-actor/event matrix

V. Necessary federal gateway

A. FDCPA coverage

The FDCPA defines a covered “debt” as an obligation arising from a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. It defines “debt collector” through two independent principal routes:

1. A person whose principal business purpose is collecting debts.
2. A person who regularly collects debts owed or due another.

It also includes a creditor collecting its own debt under a name suggesting that a third person is collecting. U.S. Code

Material exclusions include:

• Officers or employees collecting in the creditor’s own name.
• A narrow affiliate-collection arrangement.
• Government officers performing official duties.
• Process servers performing service.
• A qualifying bona fide nonprofit credit-counseling organization.
• Certain fiduciary, escrow, originator, pre-default assignee, and commercial-credit situations. U.S. Code

The old blanket attorney exemption no longer exists.

B. Debt buyers

Henson v. Santander

The Supreme Court held that a company collecting debts it purchased for its own account did not fall within the statutory prong covering a person who regularly collects debts “owed or due another.” The Court expressly did not decide whether Santander qualified under the separate principal-purpose prong. Ownership therefore defeats neither every FDCPA theory nor every state licensing theory. Supreme Court

McAdory v. DNF Associates

The Ninth Circuit held at the pleading stage that a passive debt buyer can fall under the principal-purpose definition even if it outsources all direct interaction. A company cannot necessarily avoid that prong by hiring others to perform the communications. The case reversed dismissal and remanded; it did not establish final trial-level facts about every debt buyer. It is controlling federal appellate authority for Montana federal courts. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

C. Attorneys

In Heintz v. Jenkins, the Supreme Court held that the FDCPA applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer-debt collection activity, including litigation. Being a law firm is not a categorical federal exemption. GovInfo

D. Security-interest enforcement

In Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, the Supreme Court held that a business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure is generally treated as a debt collector only for §1692f(6). The Court did not create blanket immunity for conduct beyond pure security-interest enforcement or for entities independently satisfying the general debt-collector definition. Supreme Court

E. Communications and conduct

For a federally covered collector:

• Communications at unusual or inconvenient times or places are restricted; 8 a.m.–9 p.m. local time is the statutory presumption.
• Known workplace restrictions and represented-consumer contacts are limited.
• Communications with third parties are generally restricted.
• A qualifying written refusal-to-pay or cease-contact request limits further contact to specified exceptions.
• Harassing, abusive, threatening, and repeatedly ringing conduct undertaken with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass is prohibited.
• False representations about the creditor, debt amount, legal status, attorney involvement, arrest, seizure, garnishment, credit reporting, or legal process are prohibited.
• Unauthorized interest, fees, and other amounts are prohibited.
• Certain repossession and communication-privacy practices are prohibited. U.S. Code+3

Regulation F adds operational presumptions and electronic rules. It generally presumes a violation for more than seven telephone calls concerning a particular debt within seven consecutive days or a call within seven days after a telephone conversation about that debt, subject to stated exclusions and rebuttal. It also requires simple electronic opt-out mechanisms and restricts public social-media communications. These are federal requirements—not Montana’s own call-frequency law. eCFR+4

F. State-law preservation

The FDCPA preserves state law except to the extent of an actual inconsistency; greater state protection is not inconsistent. Therefore, Montana loan-specific fee restrictions, UCC restrictions, and MCPA standards can coexist with federal FDCPA duties. Montana’s lack of a duplicate federal communication rule does not eliminate the federal rule. U.S. Code

VI. Controlling and materially relevant opinions and orders

A. McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger

The Ninth Circuit affirmed FDCPA liability arising from a Montana collection lawsuit on a time-barred debt, pursuit of unauthorized attorney fees, and false requests for admission. The opinion confirms that litigation documents and litigation conduct are not categorically outside the FDCPA. Detailed limitations, pleading proof, and collection-litigation procedure remain for later passes. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

B. Jacobson v. Bayview Loan Servicing

In a mortgage-servicing and foreclosure setting, the Montana Supreme Court addressed direct communications despite known attorney representation and materially misleading claims about the beneficiary, ownership, and ability to resolve or cure. The opinion supports applying federal collection restrictions and the MCPA to deceptive servicing and collection conduct. It does not enact a free-standing Montana represented-consumer contact rule applicable to every original creditor. Justia Law

C. Baird v. Norwest Bank

The Montana Supreme Court held that Montana’s Consumer Protection Act applies to the lending and collection of consumer loans by banks. The case is especially important because it rejects the idea that original-creditor or bank status categorically removes collection activity from Montana’s unfair-practices law. It is not a collector-licensing decision. Justia Law

D. Historical BFID order — Westgate

A 2014 BFID cease-and-desist order alleged and determined for that administrative posture that Westgate made consumer loans to Montana residents without the required license. The order cited §32-5-103 and treated the loans as void with no right to collect principal, interest, fees, or charges. The second page provided a 14-day hearing-request route. This was a party-specific historical order involving unlicensed lending; it is not proof that every remote debt collector is a Montana consumer lender. Montana Department of Administration+2

E. Search limitation

Targeted official and public case searches did not locate:

• A controlling Montana appellate decision defining when a passive owner must obtain a Consumer Loan License.
• A controlling Montana decision establishing a general collection-agency license.
• A current published Montana appellate construction of BFID’s 2016 servicing memorandum.
• A comprehensive current DOJ/BFID debt-buyer order series.
• A Montana mini-FDCPA communication statute.

That is a bounded search result, not proof no trial-court order, unpublished administrative matter, consent order, or nonindexed decision exists.

VII. Bounded operational examples

These examples classify activity and illustrate statutory arithmetic. They do not approve an actual provider, account, contract, fee, communication, or lawsuit.

Example 1 — Nonbank original creditor collecting its own MCLA loan

Facts

• Company made a $4,000 personal-purpose unsecured loan to a Montana resident.
• Company is not a bank, credit union, or other exempt institution.
• It receives monthly payments directly.

Result

The account is a Montana Consumer Loan Act candidate. The company needs a Consumer Loan License unless a statutory exemption applies. Its own-name collection ordinarily does not make it an FDCPA debt collector, but the Montana licensing, fee, receipt, advertising, and MCPA rules remain applicable.

Evidence to retain

• Loan purpose.
• Originator identity.
• NMLS Consumer Loan License status on the origination and collection dates.
• Contract and fee schedule.
• Receipts and payment ledger.

Claims: S_MT-P08-C002–C006, C017–C022.

Example 2 — Original creditor using a collection-company identity

Facts

• Original creditor owns the account.
• Letters use “National Recovery Bureau.”
• The name is not clearly identified as the creditor’s registered DBA and suggests an unrelated third-party agency.

Result

Montana licensing still depends on the underlying account and activity. Federally, the creditor can fall within the FDCPA’s other-name provision even though it owns the debt. MCPA deception analysis is separate.

Missing facts

• Legal and registered assumed names.
• Letterhead, caller ID, websites, scripts.
• Whether a reasonable consumer would understand that the creditor itself is collecting.

Claims: C010, C025, C031.

Example 3 — Transferred Montana Consumer Loan Act loan

Facts

• Licensed nonbank lender originated a personal loan under the MCLA.
• Buyer acquires the loan.
• Buyer or its servicer receives payments and directs them to the buyer.

Result

The contract remains governed by the MCLA. BFID’s current interpretation indicates that the servicing entity needs a Consumer Loan License. Ownership of the loan does not remove the fee and account-handling restrictions.

Public check

Search the collector and any servicing entity separately in NMLS Consumer Access; do not infer one entity’s license covers an affiliate.

Claims: C003–C009, C016.

Example 4 — Bank-originated credit-card debt purchased after default

Facts

• National bank originated the card.
• Debt was in default when purchased by a nonbank debt buyer.
• Buyer uses a third-party agency.

Montana result

BFID states that its MCLA servicing memorandum does not apply to bank-originated loans. No general Montana debt-buyer license was identified. MCPA, contract, retail-installment, telemarketing, professional, and other activity-specific rules must still be checked.

Federal result

• Henson prevents reliance only on the “owed another” prong against the owner collecting for itself.
• McAdory leaves the buyer potentially covered under the principal-purpose prong.
• The outside agency ordinarily remains subject to the “owed another” analysis.

Claims: C001, C007, C028–C033.

Example 5 — Passive debt buyer with no consumer communications

Facts

• Buyer acquires defaulted consumer portfolios.
• All calls, letters, and lawsuits are outsourced.
• Most revenue comes from collections.

Result

No Montana license follows solely from the word “buyer”; the debt’s origin and the buyer’s payment-control or retail-installment activity must be determined. Under McAdory, the lack of direct communication does not defeat the federal principal-purpose theory at the pleading stage.

Documents

• Revenue breakdown.
• Acquisition agreements.
• Servicing and agency contracts.
• Authority to approve settlements and lawsuits.
• Ownership and affiliate chart.

Claims: C008–C010, C029–C030.

Example 6 — Remote agency collecting medical debt

Facts

• Collector is headquartered outside Montana.
• It collects a Montana hospital bill.
• It does not originate loans or receive payments on an MCLA loan.

Result

BFID says service-provider obligations such as hospital bills are outside the MCLA. No general Montana collection-agency license was identified. The collector may nevertheless be subject to the FDCPA if the obligation is consumer debt, and to the MCPA for unfair or deceptive conduct.

An out-of-state headquarters is not an exemption from applicable law.

Claims: C001, C007, C023–C026, C031.

Example 7 — Represented consumer and workplace contact

Facts

• Third-party collector knows the consumer has counsel for the debt.
• Collector calls the consumer’s workplace.
• Employer prohibits personal collection calls.

State result

No general Montana statute independently duplicating the federal represented-consumer and workplace rules was located. MCPA unfairness or deception may still apply based on the full facts.

Federal result

If the caller is a federally covered debt collector and the attorney is readily ascertainable, §1692c restricts direct contact. Known employer restrictions create a separate federal problem.

Claims: C025, C034–C036.

Example 8 — Call frequency and text-message opt-out

Facts

• Covered collector places eight connected calls concerning one debt within seven consecutive days.
• Collector also sends texts with no simple opt-out.

Federal result

Eight calls exceed Regulation F’s seven-call threshold and trigger the rebuttable frequency presumption unless a stated exclusion applies. The texts raise the federal opt-out requirement.

Montana result

Those numbers and opt-out mechanics are not independently enacted Montana thresholds on the reviewed record. The same pattern could still support an MCPA unfairness theory depending on context.

No exact calendar is calculated because call dates, conversations, excluded calls, direct consent, and debt count are not supplied.

Claims: C025, C037–C039.

Example 9 — MCLA late-charge arithmetic

Assumptions

• Covered MCLA loan.
• $200 is past due.
• Contract permits a late charge.
• No prior late charge has been imposed on that same past-due amount.

Calculation:

5%×$200=$105%\times $200=$105%×$200=$10Compare $15 against $10:

max⁡($15,$10)=$15\max($15,$10)=$15max($15,$10)=$15Apply the $50 cap:

min⁡($15,$50)=$15\min($15,$50)=$15min($15,$50)=$15Maximum statutory late charge on those assumptions: $15.

Suppose the collector instead charges $55. The excess is:

$55−$15=$40$55-$15=$40$55−$15=$40The statutory double-excess forfeiture is:

2×$40=$802\times $40=$802×$40=$80This $80 calculation does not establish the consumer’s complete remedy, attorney fees, offset, or litigation result.

Claims: C018–C020.

Example 10 — Retail installment delinquency alternatives

Assumptions

• Montana retail installment contract.
• $200 installment is at least ten days late.
• Contract authorizes the applicable delinquency method.

Flat method

Maximum flat charge=$10\text{Maximum flat charge}=$10Maximum flat charge=$10### Alternative 15% calculation

15%×$200=$3015%\times $200=$3015%×$200=$30The holder may use the alternative method if validly adopted; it may not simply stack $10 and $30 into a $40 delinquency fee.

Claims: C012–C014, C022.

Example 11 — Attorney filing a time-barred collection suit

Facts

• Law firm regularly collects consumer debts.
• It files suit after the applicable limitation expired.
• It requests admissions implying the debt is enforceable.
• It seeks attorney fees not authorized by contract or law.

Result

Heintz makes litigation a covered collection activity; McCollough confirms potential FDCPA liability for time-barred litigation, false litigation requests, and unauthorized fees. Whether the claim was actually expired requires the later debt-specific limitations and revival pass.

Claims: C032, C040–C041.

Example 12 — Repossession at a residence

Facts

• Secured creditor has a present right to possession after default.
• Repossession agent encounters active physical resistance.

Result

Montana UCC permits nonjudicial repossession only without breach of the peace. Proceeding through resistance is not approved by the statute. If the agent does no more than enforce the security interest, Obduskey limits general FDCPA coverage but preserves §1692f(6); conduct beyond pure enforcement can change the analysis.

Claims: C042–C043.

Example 13 — Commercial debt

Facts

• Corporation owes a vendor $40,000 for business inventory.
• Individual owner personally guaranteed payment.
• Collection agency contacts the guarantor.

Result

The underlying transaction remains business-purpose on these facts. Neither the MCLA consumer-loan definition nor the federal FDCPA consumer-debt definition is satisfied merely because the guarantor is a natural person. Contract, guaranty, UCC, MCPA public-enforcement, and general law remain separate.

Claims: C002, C024, C031.

VIII. PASS-08 source register

IX. PASS-08 claim register

X. Component coverage and gap table

XI. Researcher self-check

Freshly read or directly inspected on October 26, 2026

• Current published 2025 Montana Consumer Loan Act sections covering definitions, licensing, transfer, voidness, fees, receipts, records, advertising, examinations, complaints, cease-and-desist, and bounded discipline.
• Current BFID Consumer Loan, Sales Finance, and FAQ pages.
• The complete three-page BFID 2016 consumer-loan-servicer memorandum.
• Montana Retail Installment Sales Act definitions, licensing, delinquency charges, statements, receipts, and bounded discipline.
• Montana Consumer Protection Act definitions, prohibited-practice, interpretation, and exemption sections.
• Deferred-deposit, UCC repossession, ambulance-reporting, private-investigator, foreign-LLC, and attorney-claim-purchase provisions.
• Current U.S. Code FDCPA definitions, communications, conduct, and state-law-preservation sections.
• Current eCFR Regulation F definitions and relevant communication, frequency, and unfair-practice provisions.
• The complete opinions in Henson, McAdory, Heintz, Obduskey, McCollough, Jacobson, and Baird.
• The two-page historical Westgate cease-and-desist order.
• Current NMLS public checklist and Consumer Access routes.

Fresh but access-limited

• Current official Montana consumer-loan administrative-rule index and selected official search renderings were available, but direct rule-body routes returned HTTP 405.
• The current official ARM 23.19.101 search rendering was available, but its direct body also returned HTTP 405.
• The NMLS checklist compiler was located, but no company-specific Montana checklist was generated.
• The OCP complaint route was search-rendered; it was not treated as licensing or adjudicative evidence.

Bounded negative searches

Official-source searches did not identify:

• A current general Montana Collection Agency License.
• A current general Montana Debt Buyer License.
• A comprehensive Montana mini-FDCPA.
• A general Montana collection-call time or frequency statute.
• A general Montana represented-consumer, third-party, cease-contact, or electronic-opt-out collection rule.
• A controlling Montana appellate interpretation of BFID’s servicing memorandum.
• A comprehensive public Montana debt-buyer enforcement-order archive.

Those search results do not prove that no unpublished order, district-court decision, internal interpretation, special sector rule, local rule, tribal rule, or later enactment exists.

Not read or resolved

• Any actual collector’s or buyer’s NMLS record.
• Any private servicing, purchase, placement, payment-processing, or collection agreement.
• Any actual call logs, texts, emails, letters, validation notices, dispute records, credit reports, or furnishing records.
• Complete current Montana ARM bodies and all rulemaking history.
• A complete paid citator, every Montana trial docket, or every BFID/DOJ administrative file.
• Full validation, documentation, reporting, limitations, revival, litigation, judgment, garnishment, bankruptcy, probate, local, tribal, or sector analysis.
• Full private-remedy and limitation treatment for Consumer Loan Act or Retail Installment Sales Act violations.
• P4, P6, or P7 as accepted premises; necessary statutes were independently read for this pass.

Exact individual source-fetch timestamps were not exposed and are not invented. No provider lookup, application, filing, complaint, regulator contact, purchase, account change, private-data access, Chrome control, other-chat access, local-file write, license approval, operational approval, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, or publication-readiness determination occurred.

REPORT PARTIAL — the focused Montana collection licensing/classification and state-specific conduct component is completed to the source and scope limits stated above. Detailed documentation, validation, reporting, litigation, limitations, remedies, local, tribal, and sector work remains required.

END S_MT PASS-08