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

S_MT PASS-19 — Bounded corrections and qualifications to PASS-07

Fresh access date: October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC Scope: Only the four requested PASS-07 correction groups. PASS-18 is not repeated or adopted. All unaffected PASS-07 findings, examples, claims, sources, and coverage holds remain unchanged.

Correction determination

GROUP 1 — Unauthorized fee imposition versus fee receipt

Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 1

Example 1 — Unauthorized charge without bona fide error

Assumptions

• A valid Part 20 DMP initially exists.
• Initial fee actually received: $75.00.
• Six monthly fees actually received:

6×$30.00=$180.006\times $30.00=$180.006×$30.00=$180.00- Total fees received before the new charge:

$75.00+$180.00=$255.00$75.00+$180.00=$255.00$75.00+$180.00=$255.00- The provider imposes an unauthorized $20.00 processing charge.

• The charge is a provider fee.
• Assume the bona-fide-error exception does not apply.
• Consumer creditor-payment principal, if any, is separate and is not included in these fee totals.

Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) is triggered when a service either imposes an unauthorized fee or charge or receives unauthorized funds or payments, absent bona fide error. Its return measure, however, is all fees received from or on behalf of the consumer. Montana Code Annotated

Branch A — the $20.00 was imposed but never paid

Fees actually received remain:

$75.00+$180.00=$255.00$75.00+$180.00=\boxed{$255.00}$75.00+$180.00=$255.00​Conditional statutory consequences:

• The DMP is void under subsection (4)(g).
• The service must return the $255.00 actually received in fees.
• The unpaid $20.00 is not added to the fee-return arithmetic merely because it was imposed.

The return amount is therefore:

$255.00\boxed{$255.00}$255.00​#### Branch B — the $20.00 was imposed and actually received

Total fees received:

$75.00+$180.00+$20.00=$275.00$75.00+$180.00+$20.00

\boxed{$275.00}$75.00+$180.00+$20.00=$275.00​Conditional statutory consequences:

• The DMP is void.
• The service must return all $275.00 received in fees.

The return amount is:

$275.00\boxed{$275.00}$275.00​Neither branch classifies creditor-purpose principal as a fee. Section 30-14-2010(4)(g) speaks of returning all fees; it does not itself provide the complete return, transfer, or accounting mechanism for nonfee consumer principal. Montana Code Annotated

Exact replacement for PASS-07 Example 2

Example 2 — Bona-fide-error and posted-versus-received branches

Assumptions

• Previously authorized fees actually received: $300.00.
• A processor posts a duplicate $30.00 fee.
• Whether the posting constitutes an imposed charge is an actual-system and consumer-account fact.
• Whether the bona-fide-error exception applies remains a separate legal and factual issue.
• No burden of proof is assigned by this hypothetical.

Branch A — duplicate fee is imposed, remains unpaid, and the exception does not apply

Fees received:

$300.00\boxed{$300.00}$300.00​Because imposition itself can trigger subsection (4)(g), the DMP may be void even though the duplicate was not collected. But the return measure remains the fees actually received:

$300.00\boxed{$300.00}$300.00​The unpaid $30.00 is not included in the refund arithmetic.

Branch B — duplicate fee is imposed, actually collected, and the exception does not apply

Total fees received:

$300.00+$30.00=$330.00$300.00+$30.00

\boxed{$330.00}$300.00+$30.00=$330.00​The conditional all-fees return is:

$330.00\boxed{$330.00}$330.00​#### Branch C — duplicate is merely an internal posting

If the posting was neither communicated or imposed as a charge nor actually received, subsection (4)(g)’s fee-imposition or receipt predicate is not established on that fact alone. Other correction, accounting, contract, or consumer-protection duties may still exist.

Branch D — assume the bona-fide-error exception applies

On that assumption, subsection (4)(g)’s automatic voidness and all-fees-return consequence does not attach through that clause.

This does not establish that:

• The duplicate $30.00 may be retained.
• A received duplicate was lawfully earned.
• The fee was contractually authorized.
• Another refund, correction, actual-damages, or public remedy is unavailable.

Branch E — bona-fide-error facts unresolved

No automatic voidness or return total is declared until the exception predicate is resolved. The statute does not define “bona fide error” here, allocate the burden, prescribe a cure, or establish that a recurring system configuration is categorically inside or outside the exception. Montana Code Annotated

Group 1 affected claim replacements

GROUP 2 — Public-enforcement routes and exact penalty predicates

Exact replacement for PASS-07 E5

E5. Public MCPA injunction, notice, TRO, and venue routes

Section 30-14-111 authorizes the Department to act when it has reason to believe that a person “is using, has used, or is about to knowingly use” an unlawful method, act, or practice and the proceeding would be in the public interest. The grammatical placement of “knowingly” is preserved exactly; this patch does not impose one universal knowledge element across all past, present, and future branches without controlling construction. Montana Code Annotated

For a temporary or permanent injunction:

• The notice must state generally the relief sought.
• It must be served under §30-14-115 at least 20 days before the injunction hearing.
• Section 30-14-115 calls first for personal service in Montana; if personal service cannot be obtained, substitute service may use the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The action may be filed in District Court where the person resides or has a principal place of business.
• If the person is not a Montana resident or maintains no Montana place of business, venue may lie in Lewis and Clark County.
• The District Court may issue temporary or permanent injunctions without bond. Montana Code Annotated+1

A temporary restraining order follows a distinct route. Section 30-14-111(2) directs TRO notice questions to §27-19-315. An ex parte TRO generally requires:

1. A showing satisfying the four preliminary-relief elements in §27-19-201(1): likely merits success, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public interest; and
2. Written certification of notice efforts and the reasons notice should not be required.

No actual TRO, hearing date, service, or calendar computation is resolved here. Montana Code Annotated+1

The Department’s other Part 1 investigative and restorative routes remain as previously stated, including civil investigative demands, subpoenas, restoration, receivership, and county-attorney participation. This correction only supplies §30-14-111’s exact predicates and procedure.

Exact replacement for PASS-07 E6

E6. Public civil fines, criminal sanction, Part 20 fine, and vulnerable-adult branches

The first three rows arise from §30-14-142. Montana Code Annotated The Part 20 row follows the exact “shall be fined” language in §30-14-2015(8). Montana Code Annotated

Vulnerable-adult alternatives

The additional penalty under §30-14-144 requires an unlawful §30-14-103 practice perpetrated against a vulnerable adult and either:

Branch A — directed-conduct knowledge

The person knew or should have known that the conduct was directed toward one or more vulnerable adults.

Branch B — specified loss

The conduct caused a vulnerable adult to suffer at least one of these five losses:

1. Loss or encumbrance of a primary residence.
2. Loss of principal employment or another income source.
3. Substantial loss of property reserved for retirement or personal or family care and maintenance.
4. Substantial loss of pension, retirement-plan, or government-benefit payments.
5. Loss of assets essential to health or welfare.

Knowledge under Branch A is therefore not a universal additional element of Branch B. The two branches are alternatives. Montana Code Annotated

For this penalty, “vulnerable adult” means a person who is at least 60 years old, or an adult who has the specified substantially limiting physical or mental impairment or qualifying developmental disability. No actual person’s age, impairment, disability, loss, or vulnerability is assumed. Montana Code Annotated

Group 2 affected claim replacements

GROUP 3 — Defendant-specific limitations qualification

Exact replacement for PASS-07 G1

G1. Private MCPA claim

Current §30-14-133 says that an individual MCPA action must be commenced within the timeframe described in §27-2-211 as a whole. It does not cite only subsection (1)(c). Montana Code Annotated

Ordinary entity or ordinary statutory-liability branch

Section 27-2-211(1)(c) provides a two-year period for a liability created by statute that is neither a penalty or forfeiture nor the identified public-assistance debt. Osterman held that the MCPA creates a statutory liability and applied the two-year branch to its claims against Sears and K-Designers. Montana Code Annotated+2

Director or stockholder branch

Section 27-2-211(3) separately states that, notwithstanding other provisions in the chapter, qualifying actions against directors or stockholders of a corporation to recover a penalty or forfeiture or enforce a liability created by law must be brought within three years under that subsection’s triggering language. Montana Code Annotated

In Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., the Montana Supreme Court held that subsection (3), rather than subsection (1)(c), applied where the plaintiffs sued the majority shareholder, corporate president, and board member in that corporate capacity to enforce statutory dissenters’ rights. The Court described subsection (3) as specifically governing directors and stockholders and allowing three years instead of two. Justia Law

The three-year branch is not automatically available merely because a defendant is:

• An employee.
• An officer who is not sued as a director or stockholder.
• An LLC member.
• An affiliate.
• A parent company.
• A lead generator.
• A service provider’s owner.
• A person who participated in conduct.

The actual defendant’s corporate capacity, the claim’s legal nature, and whether the action seeks a penalty, forfeiture, or liability created by law must be established.

Trigger qualification

The current statutory sentence contains discovery language. But older Montana Supreme Court decisions construing its materially similar predecessor parsed the alternatives differently: they measured a liability-created-by-law action from creation of the liability, while using discovery for penalty or forfeiture claims. Hansen confirmed the three-year defendant-specific branch but did not need to resolve that trigger question because the action was timely from the underlying corporate transaction. Justia Law+2

Accordingly, this correction does not announce:

• A universal three-year discovery rule.
• A universal three-year period for all claims against owners.
• A fixed accrual date for an MCPA director claim.
• A blanket tolling rule.

Actual capacity, claim type, statutory liability, creation date, discovery, concealment, and accrual remain fact-dependent.

Exact replacement for PASS-07 G2

G2. Part 20 express damages and fee-return claims

Section 30-14-2015 contains no express limitation period. For an ordinary claim against the covered provider entity or another defendant outside §27-2-211(3), the best-supported provisional classification remains the two-year statutory-liability period in §27-2-211(1)(c). No controlling decision specifically construing the limitation for §30-14-2015 was located. Montana Code Annotated+1

A distinct branch must now be preserved:

• If the defendant is actually a director or stockholder of a corporation;
• Is sued in that capacity;
• And the Part 20 claim against that person seeks a penalty, forfeiture, or liability created by law;

then §27-2-211(3)’s three-year provision may apply instead of the ordinary two-year branch. Whether Part 20 creates direct liability against that individual, whether the individual is a qualifying director or stockholder, and the subsection’s correct trigger must be established.

The following remain unresolved:

• The period for a standalone affirmative all-fees-return claim.
• Defensive use of voidness after the affirmative period.
• Whether each unauthorized fee is a separate accrual.
• Concealment, equitable estoppel, or tolling.
• Class-action tolling.
• Subsection (3)’s reach to a particular Part 20 individual defendant.
• Whether the claim is a penalty, forfeiture, or nonpenal statutory liability.
• The controlling trigger under subsection (3).

Exact replacement for PASS-07 G3

G3. Part 21 private remedies

A Part 21 debtor proceeding through §30-14-133 ordinarily invokes §27-2-211:

• The ordinary statutory-liability branch is two years.
• A qualifying action against a corporate director or stockholder can potentially invoke subsection (3)’s three-year branch.
• The three-year branch is not automatically available against the provider corporation, an LLC, an employee, an affiliate, or every owner.

The direct Part 21 cancellation-refund provision contains no express limitation. If enforced through §30-14-133, the relevant §27-2-211 branch depends on the actual defendant and claim. Other contract, restitution, fraud, or equitable theories may use different periods and remain outside PASS-07.

Conditional defendant-type workflow

No actual filing deadline follows from this matrix.

Group 3 affected claim replacements

GROUP 4 — Pinpoint and source corrections

Corrected C004

Corrected C024 and Granbois treatment

Correct Granbois posture and result

The correct citation is Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1999 MT 222, docket 98-637, decided September 22, 1999—not 1999 MT 249. The Court reversed summary judgment for the cooperative and directed partial summary judgment for Granbois for $932.07 on the unreasonable-access restriction. It held only that the cooperative was not exempt from the Part 1 MCPA on the exemption theory presented. Whether the cooperative’s conduct actually violated the MCPA, whether it breached good faith, and whether further damages were available remained for remand. Justia Law+2

Corrected Osterman source and posture

Osterman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2003 MT 327 arose from defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment on Osterman’s fraud, unfair-trade-practice, and negligent-misrepresentation claims; a trial proceeded on remaining claims. The Supreme Court’s material limitation discussion is at ¶¶21–30, printed pages 8–12, zero-based PDF indices 7–11. The opinion sometimes uses “dismissing” descriptively, but the procedural ruling under review was summary judgment, not a Rule 12 dismissal. Judicial Document Service+5

PASS-19 source register

PASS-19 claim register

Coverage and residual-gap table

Researcher self-check

Freshly read

• Current MCA §§30-14-2010, 2015, 111, 115, 142, 144, 105, 133, and 135.
• Current MCA §§27-19-201, 27-19-315, 27-2-211, and 27-2-231.
• Current vulnerable-adult definition in §52-3-803.
• Complete relevant opinions or opinion reproductions for:Hansen v. 75 Ranch Co., 1998 MT 77.Williams v. Hilger, 77 Mont. 399.Brown v. Roberts, 78 Mont. 301.Osterman v. Sears, 2003 MT 327.Granbois v. Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, 1999 MT 222.
• The relevant PDF pages in Osterman and Granbois were visually inspected.

Preserved, not reclassified

• The supplied PASS-07 tables and passages remain historical PASS-07 material except for the cells expressly replaced above.
• The coordinator’s local review packets were not accessed or represented as my own source access.
• PASS-07’s federal §6104 transport/currentness gap remains unchanged.
• No other PASS-07 case, federal provision, provider order, or numerical example was rerun.

Still unresolved

• Bona-fide-error definition, burden, cure, and recurring-system treatment.
• Part 20 fine forum and procedural classification.
• Modern trigger construction under §27-2-211(3) for an MCPA or Part 20 action.
• Whether a particular director, stockholder, officer, employee, LLC member, owner, or affiliate is directly liable.
• Actual accrual, discovery, concealment, tolling, capacity, contract, fee, payment, harm, and overlap facts.
• Complete post-2025 legislative and paid-citator review.

No local write, provider lookup, filing, contact, private-case access, independent-review conclusion, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication-readiness determination occurred.

END S_MT PASS-19.