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

S_MT PASS-11 — Montana ordinary unsecured consumer-debt limitation, accrual, choice-of-law, tolling, and revival

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 limitations component. This does not adopt the unreviewed P4, P6–P10 analyses or regenerate provider, licensing, validation, reporting, or remedies work. Component status: PARTIAL. Montana’s principal ordinary-contract periods, account-stated doctrine, negotiable-note rules, accrual, revival, cross-border limitations framework, core tolling rules, commencement rule, and federal time-barred-debt overlay are established. Several contract-dependent branches and a current service-deadline conflict remain unresolved.

I. Executive conclusions

1. Montana’s current limitations period for a claim founded on a written instrument is six years, not eight. Senate Bill 143 reduced the period from eight to six years and expressly applies to actions filed on or after October 1, 2025. Older Montana decisions stating eight years remain useful for accrual principles but not for the current numerical period. Montana Code Annotated+1
2. A contract, account, or promise not founded on a written instrument generally carries five years. A noncontractual, unwritten obligation or liability has three years, but that residual three-year branch ordinarily should not displace the more specific contract/account branch. Montana Code Annotated
3. “Credit-card debt” is not a standalone Montana limitations category. The period depends on the claim and proof:Six years if the claim is genuinely founded on an operative written instrument containing or incorporating the contractual terms.Five years if it is an unwritten account, promise, or account stated.A billing statement alone does not necessarily establish a written contract.In Colorado National Bank v. Story, the Montana Supreme Court used five years because the signed application contained no contract terms and the statements were merely statements of account. That decision does not hold that all credit-card claims are always five-year claims. Justia Law
4. An account stated requires agreement on the items and balance plus an express or implied promise to pay. Silence after receiving statements may create a rebuttable presumption, but whether the period of silence was unreasonable is ordinarily fact-dependent. Montana’s March 2026 Centron decision reversed summary judgment because whether 93 days of silence established assent required a factfinder. Justia Law
5. **A qualifying negotiable note uses Montana’s specific UCC periods rather than the general contract period.**Definite-time note: six years from each stated payment date or from the accelerated payment date.Demand note: six years after demand.If no demand is made on a demand note, the action is barred after an uninterrupted ten-year period with no principal or interest payment. Montana Code Annotated
6. Accrual ordinarily occurs when the breach is complete and suit can be maintained. Each installment ordinarily accrues separately as it becomes due unless a valid acceleration makes the remaining balance immediately due. Charge-off, assignment, sale, internal collection placement, and a creditor’s later demand do not automatically create or reset accrual when the claim was already complete. Montana Code Annotated+3
7. Montana’s revival rule is unusually broad. A qualifying acknowledgment or part payment causes the relevant limitations period to begin anew. An acknowledgment must be in a signed writing; a part payment may be principal or interest. The statute does not say revival is limited to payments made before the original period expires, and Hughes applied it to a note whose ordinary six-year period otherwise would have run. Montana Code Annotated+1
8. Payment evidence must identify the particular debt. A creditor-created ledger notation or ambiguous payment is not enough by itself. A payment or acknowledgment generally must come from the debtor or an authorized agent and be tied to the particular obligation. A payment by one co-obligor is not automatically an acknowledgment by another. Justia Law+3
9. Cross-border limitations are claim-specific, not residence-specific. If the claim is substantively based on another state’s law, Montana applies that state’s limitation period and its accrual and tolling rules, subject to Montana’s statutory unfairness exception. A choice-of-law clause must first be valid, sufficiently clear, and broad enough to govern the claim. Montana Code Annotated+3
10. Filing commences an action for limitations purposes, but service remains independently required. Current Montana law presents a facial conflict:MCA §25-3-107 says service no later than two years after filing.Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 4(t)(1) says three years.The Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that conflict in a 2026 footnote but did not decide which period controls in an ordinary civil case. No definitive ordinary-debt service terminal date should be stated from the present authorities. Montana Code Annotated+3
11. For a federally covered debt collector, filing or threatening a lawsuit on a time-barred consumer debt is prohibited. A truthful nonlitigation request for voluntary payment is not inherently prohibited, but it may not falsely imply judicial enforceability. Montana’s revival rule makes any payment or signed acknowledgment especially consequential and fact-sensitive. eCFR+1

II. Claim-by-claim classification matrix

Classification rule

The plaintiff’s label is not controlling. The court must identify the actual legal claim and the source of the obligation. A debt purchaser or assignee ordinarily receives no newer limitations period merely because ownership changed; it must prove the same underlying contract, account, or instrument and any legally relevant transfer. Montana’s statutes contain no ordinary-contract reset based solely on sale, assignment, collection placement, or charge-off. That conclusion follows from the governing periods and accrual statutes; exact assignee defenses and proof remain account-specific. Montana Code Annotated+1

III. Accrual and event analysis

1. General accrual

A Montana claim accrues when all elements exist, the right to maintain suit is complete, and a court or agency may accept jurisdiction. Unless another statute controls, the period begins then. Lack of knowledge ordinarily does not postpone accrual. The limited statutory discovery branch applies to injury to person or property when the facts are self-concealing or the defendant acted to prevent discovery; it is not a universal contract-discovery rule. Montana Code Annotated

For breach of contract, the Montana Supreme Court has said accrual begins at breach unless a recognized concealment doctrine applies. The older case used the former eight-year number; only its accrual analysis remains current for this purpose. Justia Law

A later refusal, denial, demand, invoice, charge-off, or collection letter does not postpone accrual when the right to sue was already complete. Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board distinguished a true installment obligation from a later demand or denial that merely confirmed an already complete claim. Justia Law

2. Installment obligations

Where a debt requires separate periodic installments and no valid acceleration has occurred, each missed installment ordinarily creates a separate accrual. Montana recognized that principle in Fulton in a different sector; its general installment logic is useful, but that domestic-relations judgment context is not imported wholesale into consumer contracts. Justia Law

For a definite-time negotiable note, §30-3-122 directly states that suit must be filed within six years after the stated payment date or dates; if a payment date is accelerated, six years runs from the accelerated payment date. Montana Code Annotated

For an ordinary unsecured installment contract, acceleration depends on:

• Whether the clause is optional or automatic.
• The event of default.
• Required notice and cure.
• Whether the creditor unequivocally exercised the option.
• The date acceleration became effective.
• Whether subsequent conduct waived, rescinded, or deaccelerated it.

No controlling published Montana ordinary-unsecured-debt decision was located that supplies a universal deacceleration rule. Exact acceleration and deacceleration dates therefore remain held without the contract and communications.

3. Demand

When a right exists but demand is legally necessary before suit, Montana measures from demand. That does not mean a creditor may postpone the clock indefinitely by withholding a demand where the claim was already enforceable without one. Montana Code Annotated+1

A qualifying UCC demand note uses the specific §30-3-122 structure. A fixed-date note with an early-demand provision can be payable on demand before the fixed date and then become definite-time if no early demand is made. Montana Code Annotated+2

4. Charge-off, collection placement, assignment, and sale

None of these events automatically supplies ordinary contractual accrual or starts a new Montana period:

McCollough illustrates the evidentiary danger. The collector treated a $75 internal entry as a partial payment that would extend the period, but the entry actually represented returned court costs. The Ninth Circuit emphasized the lack of supporting inquiry and the later acknowledgment that no consumer payment had occurred. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

5. Account stated

An account stated is not created merely because the creditor mails statements. Montana requires agreement on the items and balance and an express or implied agreement to pay. A course of dealing, antecedent indebtedness, and retention without objection for an unreasonable time may support a rebuttable presumption. Justia Law

In Centron, 93 days elapsed between the first direct statement and receipt of a written dispute. The Montana Supreme Court did not hold that 93 days was sufficient or insufficient; it held that reasonableness and assent presented a factual dispute for trial. Justia Law

Therefore:

• A statement does not automatically convert an oral or disputed transaction into an account stated.
• Silence is evidence, not conclusive assent.
• A timely and specific objection can defeat or rebut implied assent.
• The account-stated balance still must be definite.
• Formation of an account stated does not necessarily prove every original charge lawful.

IV. Acknowledgment, part payment, and revival

1. Statutory rule

Montana provides:

qualifying acknowledgment or part payment⇒relevant limitation period begins anew\text{qualifying acknowledgment or part payment} \Rightarrow \text{relevant limitation period begins anew}qualifying acknowledgment or part payment⇒relevant limitation period begins anewAn acknowledgment must be in a signed writing. Part payment means payment of principal or interest. Montana Code Annotated

The restarted period is the period that applies to the underlying claim:

• Six years for a qualifying written-instrument claim.
• Five years for an unwritten contract/account claim.
• Six years for a qualifying note under §30-3-122.
• The applicable foreign period where Montana’s conflicts rules make another state’s limitations law govern.

2. Revival after the ordinary period

Section 27-2-409 contains no “before expiration” condition. In Hughes, the Montana Supreme Court held that the general restart statute applies to promissory notes governed by §30-3-122. The note’s ordinary period would have run in 2005, but payments made and allocated to the note restarted the period. Justia Law

The bounded conclusion is that an ordinary Montana debt may remain capable of revival after the prior period has run if §27-2-409’s actual predicates are proved. That does not apply automatically to a statute that extinguishes the underlying right rather than merely barring the judicial remedy; no such special-sector rule is analyzed here.

3. Written acknowledgment requirements

Older but still materially relevant Montana construction requires the acknowledgment to:

• Be clear and unambiguous.
• Identify the particular debt.
• Recognize the obligation as due and unpaid.
• Be signed by the party to be charged or a duly authorized agent.
• Avoid language inconsistent with an intention to pay. Justia Law+1

An express phrase “I promise to pay” may not always be necessary if the writing otherwise clearly recognizes an existing unpaid debt without contradiction, but an offer to discuss, compromise, investigate, or settle a disputed claim is not automatically an acknowledgment.

Examples of unresolved writings:

• “I dispute this account, but I might pay something to end the matter.”
• “Please send documentation.”
• “I am willing to negotiate.”
• “My records show a different balance.”
• A settlement offer expressly denying liability.

Those communications require their complete text and surrounding context.

4. Electronic acknowledgments

Montana UETA provides that an electronic record or signature cannot be denied effect merely because it is electronic, but only where the parties agreed to transact electronically. Attribution and legal effect depend on proof that the act was the person’s and on the context. Montana Code Annotated+2

Accordingly, an email, portal click, or text message can potentially satisfy §27-2-409’s signed-writing condition if:

• UETA applies.
• The electronic signature or process is attributable to the debtor or authorized agent.
• There was intent to sign.
• The record clearly identifies and acknowledges the particular debt.
• The complete record is preserved.

A creditor-created notation, automated system tag, or unverifiable text is insufficient merely because it is electronic.

5. Payment proof and allocation

A creditor’s endorsement or ledger entry is not enough by itself to prove payment. Nathan described a holder’s unilateral endorsement as potentially self-serving and required evidence tying the payment to the debtor or authorized agent and the particular obligation. Justia Law+1

Where several debts exist, allocation matters. Hughes treated allocation between two notes as a factual question and upheld an implied finding that part of the payments applied to the older note. Justia Law

Necessary proof includes:

• Payer identity.
• Authority if the payer was an agent or third party.
• Date received and cleared.
• Amount.
• Whether applied to principal or interest.
• Account designation on the payment.
• Creditor’s contemporaneous allocation.
• Whether the payment was voluntary.
• Whether it was reversed, refunded, unauthorized, or misposted.
• Whether another obligation better explains it.

A payment by one co-obligor does not automatically revive the claim against another absent authority or an independent acknowledgment by that person. Justia Law

V. Choice of law and cross-border limitations

1. Contract law selection

Montana’s default statutory directive says a contract is interpreted under the law and usage of its place of performance or, if it specifies no performance location, the place where it was made. Montana Code Annotated

A clear contractual choice-of-law provision is generally enforced unless contrary to Montana public policy or good morals. Masters Group applied that rule to a negotiated commercial agreement; its holding does not mean every consumer choice clause is necessarily valid, adequately disclosed, or broad enough to govern limitations. Justia Law

Without an effective clause, Barber confirms that §28-3-102 supplies Montana’s statutory contractual choice directive. Justia Law

2. Limitations law selection

Montana adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws—Limitations Act:

• If a claim is substantively based on one other state’s law, that state’s limitation applies.
• If based on more than one state, the Act selects one of those states.
• Montana’s period applies to other claims.
• When another state’s period applies, that state’s accrual and tolling rules apply, but not its conflicts rules.
• Montana may substitute its own period if the foreign period is substantially different and did not afford a fair opportunity to sue or imposes an unfair defense burden. Montana Code Annotated+2

This is not a simple “borrow the debtor’s residence period” rule. The claim’s substantive legal basis controls. Oskerson emphasizes that §27-2-503 applies to a claim based on another state’s substantive law, not merely to any matter with an out-of-state origin. Justia Law

3. Practical cross-border sequence

1. Identify the claim actually pleaded.
2. Determine whether the agreement contains an effective choice clause.
3. Determine the clause’s scope.
4. If no effective clause, apply Montana’s contractual choice directive and other applicable conflict principles.
5. Identify the state whose substantive law governs the claim.
6. Apply §27-2-503.
7. If foreign limitations law applies, use that state’s accrual and tolling rules under §27-2-504.
8. Test §27-2-505’s unfairness exception.
9. Separately apply Montana forum commencement and service procedures unless displaced by controlling law.

A creditor cannot select the longest period merely by choosing where to file, and an assignee cannot change the governing state merely through an assignment.

VI. Tolling, suspension, savings, and contractual limits

1. Disability of claimant

If the person entitled to sue was a minor or had been committed under the identified Montana commitment statute when the claim accrued, disability time is excluded. The disability must exist at accrual; later disability does not trigger the provision. Commitment can extend the period no more than five years. This usually has limited application to an institutional creditor but may matter for an individual lender. Montana Code Annotated

2. Defendant outside Montana

Absence tolling applies only when the defendant is outside Montana and cannot be served with process. Remote residence or physical absence alone is not enough when valid service remains available. Montana Code Annotated

3. Arbitration

Montana excludes the specified arbitration interval only under §27-2-405’s conditions, including a written arbitration agreement or submission and the identified revocation or stay circumstances. Merely negotiating or participating in an informal dispute process does not automatically toll the period. Montana Code Annotated

4. Injunction, court order, or statutory prohibition

When commencement is stayed by an injunction, other court order, or statutory prohibition, the duration of that restraint is excluded. Montana Code Annotated

5. Savings after dismissal or reversal

A timely action may be refiled within one year after reversal or qualifying termination, but not where termination was:

• Voluntary discontinuance.
• Dismissal for neglect to prosecute.
• Final judgment on the merits. Montana Code Annotated

This savings provision must be distinguished from ordinary dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal label alone does not guarantee a viable refiling after the underlying period has expired.

6. Bankruptcy

A bankruptcy petition ordinarily stays commencement or continuation of an action to recover a prepetition claim and other collection activity, subject to federal exceptions. GovInfo

11 U.S.C. §108(c) provides the later of:

1. The end of the nonbankruptcy period, including any applicable suspension; or
2. Thirty days after notice of termination or expiration of the stay. U.S. Code

Section 108(c) should not be described as automatically stopping every clock for the entire bankruptcy. Montana §27-2-406 may supply an applicable suspension where the stay is a statutory prohibition, but exact calculation requires:

• Petition date.
• Whether the period was still open.
• Applicable stay.
• Any relief-from-stay order.
• Termination or expiration date.
• Date and sufficiency of notice.
• Discharge status.
• Any applicable Montana suspension or foreign-law tolling.

Full bankruptcy procedure remains excluded.

7. Contractual shortening

Montana declares void a contractual term that limits the time within which a party may enforce contractual rights through ordinary tribunals, apart from the identified arbitration exception. Montana Code Annotated

The Montana Supreme Court has long treated that rule as strong public policy. A choice-of-law clause therefore cannot be assumed to validate a shortened suit period without a full conflict and public-policy analysis. Justia Law

8. Transition after SB 143

SB 143 says the six-year written-instrument period applies to actions filed on or after October 1, 2025. Montana Legislative Archive

Older Montana authority recognizes that the Legislature may shorten an existing limitation if a reasonable opportunity to sue remains. No controlling published decision located in this pass has yet applied that constitutional transition principle to SB 143. Thus, for a written claim that was still open under the former eight-year period but already more than six years old on October 1, 2025:

• The enacted applicability clause facially directs use of six years.
• Any constitutional “reasonable opportunity” challenge remains unresolved.
• No automatic two-year carryover from the old law may be invented. Justia Law

VII. Commencement, service, defense, and federal time-bar overlay

1. Commencement

For Montana limitations purposes, an action is commenced when the complaint is filed. Montana Code Annotated

That rule does not mean filing alone permanently preserves the action regardless of service.

2. Service conflict

Current published authorities conflict:

In Estate of Athy (2026), the Montana Supreme Court quoted Rule 4’s three-year period and added a footnote: “But see §25-3-107” and its two-year language. The case involved a separate six-month medical-malpractice service statute, so the Court did not resolve the ordinary two-versus-three-year conflict. Justia Law+1

Valid service remains necessary for personal jurisdiction. Failure to serve can cause dismissal even where the complaint was timely filed. A dismissal without prejudice does not revive a limitations period that expired in the interim; Athy explains that the parties may be left as though the dismissed action had not been brought. Justia Law

3. Defense and burden

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be stated in the responsive pleading. Montana Code Annotated

Montana permits the defense to be pleaded generally by citation to the relied-upon statute. If controverted, the party asserting the defense must prove the facts showing the bar. Montana Code Annotated

No Montana statute located in this pass requires a court to investigate and raise the ordinary contract limitation on behalf of a consumer in every default case. Facial untimeliness can be adjudicated when properly presented, but full default-judgment and court-review procedure remains for a later pass.

4. Limitation ordinarily bars the remedy, not the existence of the debt

The ordinary Montana contract limitation operates as an affirmative defense. Montana’s revival statute and the Ninth Circuit’s description of time-barred debt as potentially continuing as a moral obligation reinforce that expiration does not invariably erase the underlying obligation. Montana Code Annotated+2

That bounded statement does not apply to a sector statute expressly making an illegal or unlicensed obligation void. Those regimes are outside this pass.

5. Federal time-barred collection rule

Regulation F defines “time-barred debt” as a debt for which the applicable limitation period has expired and prohibits a covered debt collector from bringing or threatening legal action on it. Filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy is addressed separately. eCFR

In Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, the Ninth Circuit held that filing or threatening a suit on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA without requiring the consumer to prove the collector knew or should have known the debt was barred. The bona-fide-error defense remains separately available if its elements are met. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Kaiser also explains that there is nothing inherently unlawful about seeking voluntary payment of a still-existing but judicially unenforceable debt if the communication does not falsely imply enforceability. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Because Montana allows revival by payment or signed acknowledgment, communications concerning a time-barred Montana debt require special precision. A collector may not:

• Sue.
• Threaten suit.
• Imply that suit remains available.
• Misstate the limitation status.
• Falsely claim that a payment already occurred.
• Obscure the legal effect of a requested payment or signed promise where material.

McCollough is the concrete Montana example: the collection firm relied on a nonexistent $75 payment to treat the debt as timely and continued litigation after receiving contrary information. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals+1

VIII. Process matrix

IX. Bounded examples

These examples use hypothetical facts only. They do not establish an actual debt, governing law, valid acceleration, revival, tolling, service compliance, or a safe filing deadline.

Example 1 — Current written-contract period and weekend rule

Assumptions

• Montana law governs.
• Valid written instrument.
• Breach and complete accrual: November 15, 2020.
• No installment issue, tolling, revival, foreign law, bankruptcy, or transition challenge.
• Action would be filed after October 1, 2025.

Six-year arithmetic:

November 15, 2020+6 calendar years=November 15, 2026\text{November 15, 2020}+6\text{ calendar years}

\text{November 15, 2026}November 15, 2020+6 calendar years=November 15, 2026November 15, 2026 is Sunday. Montana excludes the first day, includes the last, and carries an act falling on a Saturday or legal holiday to the next business day. Sunday is a legal holiday. The illustrative terminal filing day becomes:

Monday, November 16, 2026\boxed{\text{Monday, November 16, 2026}}Monday, November 16, 2026​This does not determine service. Montana Code Annotated+4

Example 2 — Oral or implied contract

Assumptions

• Oral consumer agreement.
• Entire amount became due April 1, 2020.
• No qualifying writing, payment, acknowledgment, tolling, or foreign law.

April 1, 2020+5 years=April 1, 2025\text{April 1, 2020}+5\text{ years}

\boxed{\text{April 1, 2025}}April 1, 2020+5 years=April 1, 2025​April 1, 2025 was Tuesday, so no weekend/holiday extension applies. A later charge-off or sale does not create a new five-year period. Montana Code Annotated+1

Example 3 — Revolving credit account with uncertain classification

Common assumed event: January 10, 2021.

Branch A — Story-like account-stated record

Assume January 10, 2021 was the legally operative last payment/accrual event and no sufficient written instrument exists:

January 10, 2021+5 years=January 10, 2026\text{January 10, 2021}+5\text{ years}

\text{January 10, 2026}January 10, 2021+5 years=January 10, 2026January 10, 2026 was Saturday:

Monday, January 12, 2026\boxed{\text{Monday, January 12, 2026}}Monday, January 12, 2026​### Branch B — written-instrument claim

Assume instead that a complete signed or incorporated card agreement governed the account and breach occurred January 10, 2021:

January 10, 2021+6 years=January 10, 2027\text{January 10, 2021}+6\text{ years}

\text{January 10, 2027}January 10, 2021+6 years=January 10, 2027January 10, 2027 will be Sunday:

Monday, January 11, 2027\boxed{\text{Monday, January 11, 2027}}Monday, January 11, 2027​The two branches cannot be selected without the operative agreement and accrual evidence. Montana Code Annotated+3

Example 4 — Installments and acceleration

Assumptions

• Written nonnegotiable installment contract.
• Installments due April 1, May 1, and June 1, 2021.
• No acceleration initially.

Separate six-year endpoints:

• April installment: April 1, 2027.
• May installment: May 1, 2027, a Saturday, carried to Monday, May 3, 2027.
• June installment: June 1, 2027.

Conditional acceleration branch

Assume the contract permitted acceleration, all notice and cure conditions were satisfied, and acceleration became effective May 15, 2021.

May 15, 2021+6 years=May 15, 2027\text{May 15, 2021}+6\text{ years}

\text{May 15, 2027}May 15, 2021+6 years=May 15, 2027May 15, 2027 will be Saturday, producing an illustrative next-business-day date of Monday, May 17, 2027.

Without the clause and proof of effective acceleration, that May 17 result is held. Montana Code Annotated+3

Example 5 — Demand note

Assumptions

• Instrument qualifies as a negotiable demand note.
• Demand made June 1, 2020.
• No later payment or acknowledgment.

June 1, 2020+6 years=June 1, 2026\text{June 1, 2020}+6\text{ years}

\boxed{\text{June 1, 2026}}June 1, 2020+6 years=June 1, 2026​If no demand was ever made, the different statutory branch bars suit after a continuous ten-year period with no principal or interest payment. A payment can implicate §27-2-409 and restart analysis. Montana Code Annotated+2

Example 6 — Proven part payment after the original period

Assumptions

• Unwritten account due April 1, 2019.
• Original five-year period ended April 1, 2024.
• On October 15, 2024, the debtor voluntarily made and authorized a $100 principal payment specifically on that account.
• No foreign law or special extinguishment statute.

Restart:

October 15, 2024+5 years=October 15, 2029\text{October 15, 2024}+5\text{ years}

\boxed{\text{October 15, 2029}}October 15, 2024+5 years=October 15, 2029​October 15, 2029 will be Monday.

The $100 affects timing only because the assumptions establish a genuine, attributable principal payment to that particular debt. It does not prove the remaining balance or every charge. Montana Code Annotated+1

Example 7 — Ambiguous ledger entry

Facts

• Creditor ledger contains “$75 payment.”
• No bank record.
• No receipt.
• No consumer authorization.
• Later internal email says the entry represented unused court costs.

Calculation:

proven consumer principal or interest payment=$0\text{proven consumer principal or interest payment}=$0proven consumer principal or interest payment=$0No restart is established. This is materially similar to the false-payment problem in McCollough and the evidentiary concern in Nathan. Justia Law+1

Example 8 — Electronic acknowledgment

Potentially qualifying

An attributable electronically signed record states:

“I owe $2,000 on account 1234 and will pay it.”

If UETA applies and the signature and intent are established, that can potentially restart the relevant period.

Not established

A message states:

“I dispute this account but may discuss settlement.”

That does not clearly and unambiguously recognize the particular debt as due and unpaid. No restart is assumed. Montana Code Annotated+4

Example 9 — Assignment without restart

Facts

• Claim accrued June 1, 2020.
• Debt sold September 1, 2023.
• Buyer sends first letter October 1, 2023.
• No payment or acknowledgment.

The accrual date remains June 1, 2020. The sale and first letter do not create a new period. The buyer must prove the existing claim and its ownership, but ownership proof and limitations timing are separate. Montana Code Annotated+1

Example 10 — SB 143 transition edge

Assumptions

• Written claim accrued December 1, 2018.
• Former eight-year endpoint would have been December 1, 2026.
• Current six-year endpoint was December 1, 2024.
• Suit filed October 2, 2025.

SB 143’s applicability clause says the six-year law applies because the action was filed after October 1, 2025. On the statute’s face, the action is outside six years.

A possible constitutional reasonable-opportunity argument cannot be resolved from arithmetic. Older Montana cases require a reasonable opportunity when a new law shortens existing periods, but no controlling case located here has applied that doctrine to SB 143. Montana Legislative Archive+1

Example 11 — Cross-border branch

Facts

• Montana consumer.
• Remote creditor.
• Contract contains a purported State X choice clause.
• Claim filed in Montana.

No period can be calculated until determining:

1. Whether the clause was valid and covers the claim.
2. Whether applying State X law violates Montana policy.
3. Whether the claim is substantively based on State X law under §27-2-503.
4. State X’s current limitation, accrual, revival, and tolling rules.
5. Whether §27-2-505 substitutes Montana’s period.

Residence alone supplies no answer. Montana Code Annotated+4

Example 12 — Bankruptcy sequence

Facts

• Nonbankruptcy period remains open when petition is filed.
• Automatic stay applies.
• Stay later terminates.
• Creditor receives notice of termination.

The federal endpoint is the later of:

original period, including applicable suspension\text{original period, including applicable suspension}original period, including applicable suspensionor

30 days after notice of stay termination\text{30 days after notice of stay termination}30 days after notice of stay terminationNo concrete terminal date is supplied because the exact Montana suspension, petition, stay, termination, and notice dates are missing. U.S. Code+2

Example 13 — Filing and unresolved service window

Assumptions

• Computed filing endpoint: November 16, 2026.
• Complaint filed November 16, 2026.

The action is commenced for limitations purposes on that filing date.

Service still must be validly completed. The current authorities state both two years and three years, and Athy did not resolve the conflict. Accordingly, this example does not generate a definitive service deadline. Montana Code Annotated+3

Example 14 — Time-barred collection communication

Assumptions

• Actor is a federally covered debt collector.
• Ordinary Montana limitation has expired.
• No revival or tolling applies.

The collector may not file or threaten suit. A truthful voluntary-payment request may be permissible, but it may not imply judicial enforceability. If the communication seeks a payment or signature capable of restarting the Montana period, the wording and disclosure consequences require exact review; no collection language is approved here. eCFR+1

X. PASS-11 source register

XI. PASS-11 claim register

XII. Granular coverage and gap table

XIII. Researcher self-check

Freshly read on October 26, 2026

• Current published Montana general limitation, accrual, demand, mutual-account, revival, tolling, savings, conflict-of-law, time-computation, contractual-shortening, commencement, service, and pleading provisions.
• Complete official enacted 2025 SB 143/Chapter 174, including its applicability clause.
• Current Montana UCC negotiable-instrument definition and limitation provisions.
• Current Montana UETA provisions necessary for electronic acknowledgments.
• Current federal bankruptcy §§362 and 108(c).
• Current Regulation F time-barred-debt rule.
• Full publicly available opinions or complete opinion reproductions for:Colorado National Bank v. Story.Centron v. Hollewijn.Wolfe.Montana Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board.Fulton.Hughes.Breese.Nathan.Masters Group.Barber.Oskerson.Whitcraft.Estate of Athy.
• Complete official Ninth Circuit PDFs for Kaiser and McCollough.

Numeric and event consistency checks

• Six-year written example: November 15, 2020 → November 15, 2026; Sunday carried to Monday, November 16, 2026.
• Five-year oral example: April 1, 2020 → April 1, 2025.
• Five-year credit-card branch: January 10, 2021 → January 10, 2026; Saturday carried to Monday, January 12, 2026.
• Six-year credit-card branch: January 10, 2021 → January 10, 2027; Sunday carried to Monday, January 11, 2027.
• Restart example: October 15, 2024 → October 15, 2029.
• No interest, balance, fee, or damages arithmetic was inferred from the timing examples.

Bounded negative searches

Targeted public-source searches did not locate:

• A standalone Montana limitation category for credit cards.
• A current Montana appellate decision holding that every card claim is written or unwritten.
• A controlling ordinary-unsecured Montana deacceleration doctrine.
• A post-2025 decision applying SB 143 to a claim that became more than six years old before October 1, 2025 but remained open under the former eight-year period.
• A controlling Montana resolution of §25-3-107’s two-year service period versus Rule 4(t)’s three-year period.
• A general Montana requirement that courts raise ordinary contract limitations sua sponte in every consumer default.
• A rule that charge-off, assignment, placement, or sale resets an ordinary limitation.
• A rule that every partial payment automatically restarts a debt regardless of attribution or allocation.

Those are bounded results, not proof that no unpublished order, trial decision, later opinion, local rule, tribal rule, or account-specific contract principle exists.

Not read or resolved

• Any actual cardmember agreement, promissory note, payment schedule, acceleration notice, account statement, payment record, acknowledgment, settlement communication, assignment, governing-law clause, service return, complaint, or bankruptcy docket.
• Any named borrower, creditor, debt buyer, servicer, law firm, or account.
• A complete paid citator or every Montana district-court docket.
• Every post-2025 special-session enactment or unpublished administrative interpretation.
• Foreign-state law for any particular contract.
• Full litigation, service, default, judgment, garnishment, bankruptcy, probate, secured-debt, medical, utility, rent, education, government-debt, local, or tribal analysis.
• The unreviewed P4 and P6–P10 conclusions as accepted premises.

Exact individual source-fetch timestamps were not exposed and are not invented. No filing, demand, acknowledgment, payment, provider lookup, court search involving private records, contact, records request, purchase, account change, private-data access, browser control, local-file write, deadline opinion for an individual account, suit approval, collection approval, independent review, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication-readiness determination occurred.

REPORT PARTIAL — the focused Montana ordinary unsecured consumer-debt limitation, accrual, choice-of-law, tolling, revival, and narrow commencement component is completed to the stated claim, source, factual, and currentness limits.

END S_MT PASS-11