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

S_MT PASS-26 — Bounded precision and source corrections to PASS-21

Fresh access date: October 26, 2026, Pacific / October 26, 2026, UTC Scope: Only the three requested correction groups. PASS-21’s fifteen worked examples, thirty-five checked numerical quantities, substantive supported findings, and unresolved gaps remain intact except for the specific qualifications below. PASS-22 through PASS-24 remain unreviewed and are not adopted.

Effect on the original PASS-21

GROUP 1 — Exact operative replacements

1(a). Replacement for P21 VI.A notice-content paragraph

Statutory officer notice

Within five days after executing upon the debtor’s property, the sheriff or levying officer must serve a notice that:

1. Describes the property or money seized to satisfy the judgment;
2. States the case name, date of judgment, and judgment creditor’s name;
3. Advises that state or federal exemptions may apply; and
4. Explains how to claim an exemption and request a hearing.

The date of seizure is not the item required by §25-13-211(1)(b). It may be operationally useful and may appear on a form, but it must not replace the required date of judgment. Personal service and first-class mail remain authorized; mailed service is complete when the officer places the notice in the mail. Montana Code Annotated

The related PASS-21 timing conclusions remain unchanged:

• Personal notice: ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, from actual receipt;
• Mailed notice: ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, from the officer’s mailing date;
• Same-day copies to the creditor or counsel and the officer;
• Hearing within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after court receipt; and
• Late state claim barred in the seized property. Montana Code Annotated

Affected original claims

• P21 C030 remains correct: officer notice is due within five days after seizure.
• P21 C031 remains correct: mailed notice is complete upon mailing.
• The correction concerns the required contents of the notice, not either timing claim.

1(b). Replacement for P21 C055 and related excess-proceeds language

Corrected P21 C055

Excess proceeds beyond the judgment and accruing costs must be returned to the judgment debtor, unless the judgment itself or an order of court directs otherwise.

This exception is operative. Section 25-13-402(2) does not authorize an unconditional return that overrides:

• A judgment’s express allocation;
• A court’s distribution order;
• Legally established priorities;
• A pending exemption or ownership ruling;
• An officer’s statutory hold; or
• Other valid directions in the execution proceeding. Montana Code Annotated

Original claim relationship: replaces the unqualified wording in P21 C055. No mathematical balance, priority, or satisfaction finding is changed.

1(c). Replacement for P21 VII.E and C054

Referee-order contempt only

MCA §25-14-108 provides that a person, party, or witness who disobeys an order of a referee, properly made in proceedings before that referee under chapter 14, parts 1 and 2, may be punished for contempt by the court or judge that ordered the reference. It does not itself supply a general contempt rule for all court orders. Montana Code Annotated

Corrected P21 C054

Section 25-14-108 supports contempt for disobedience of a properly made referee order in proceedings under chapter 14, parts 1 and 2. It does not by itself establish automatic employer default liability, a payroll penalty, damages, or contempt for every inaccurate answer, late remittance, or other court-order violation. Broader court-order contempt requires separate authority and remains held.

The neighboring supplemental-proceeding provisions remain accurately bounded:

• §25-14-103 permits examination of a person or corporation believed to hold debtor property or owe more than $50;
• §25-14-104 permits a separate action when ownership or indebtedness is denied;
• §25-14-105 permits witnesses to be required to testify;
• §25-14-107 permits a judge or referee to order nonexempt debtor property applied to the judgment; and
• §25-14-108 addresses disobedience of the referee’s order. Montana Code Annotated+4

1(d). Replacement qualification for C009, the route matrix, and Example 13

Outer writ-expiration qualification

Two distinct clocks appear in the governing texts:

• Justice/City Rule 23 says the writ remains effective for 120 days from the officer’s receipt; and
• MCA §25-13-402(6)(a) says a wage levy continues for 120 days or until satisfaction, whichever occurs first, but reaches earnings due from service only through expiration of the writ. Montana Code Annotated+1

The service-based language may not be read as creating a fresh, unqualified 120-day period that extends beyond the writ’s actual expiration. The precise relationship between:

1. Officer receipt;
2. Employer service;
3. The expiration date marked on the served writ;
4. Satisfaction; and
5. The general 120-day execution limit

remains held where service occurs materially after officer receipt.

Corrected P21 C009

A wage levy begins upon valid employer service and can continue only until the earliest legally controlling termination event, including satisfaction and actual writ expiration. Section 25-13-402(6)(a)’s 120-day language must be read with its express “through expiration of the writ” limit and, in Justice/City Court, Rule 23’s 120-day clock from officer receipt. No extra 120 days beyond writ expiration is established.

Example 13 qualification only

The original Example 13 remains unchanged except for this added condition:

The conclusion that satisfaction on S + 75 ends the levy assumes that the writ’s independently determined outer expiration occurs after S + 75. If the writ expires earlier, the levy ends at that earlier expiration. If the writ remains valid beyond S + 75, satisfaction ends the levy at S + 75.

No calendar date is calculated, and none of the other fourteen worked examples changes.

GROUP 2 — Rounded displays and exact lesser-of branches

Replacement for the two affected IV.C table labels

The exact ordinary formula remains:

W(D)=min⁡(0.25D, max⁡(0,D−F))W(D)=\min\left(0.25D,\ \max(0,D-F)\right)W(D)=min(0.25D, max(0,D−F))where:

• DDD = disposable earnings for the pay period; and
• FFF = that pay period’s protected floor.

The crossover occurs where:

0.25D=D−F0.25D=D-F0.25D=D−F0.75D=F0.75D=F0.75D=FD=F0.75D=\frac{F}{0.75}D=0.75F​The eCFR requires equivalent pay-period transformations, treats a calendar month as 4134\frac13431​ workweeks, and preserves the lesser-of formula. Its dollar illustrations from 1991 are historical examples, not current minimum-wage figures. eCFR+2

Diagnostic edge calculation 1 — semimonthly $628.33

Inputs

D=$628.33D=$628.33D=$628.33F=$471.25F=$471.25F=$471.2525% branch:

0.25×$628.33=$157.08250.25\times $628.33

$157.08250.25×$628.33=$157.0825Excess-over-floor branch:

$628.33−$471.25=$157.08$628.33-$471.25

$157.08$628.33−$471.25=$157.08Exact lesser branch:

min⁡($157.0825,$157.08)=$157.08\min($157.0825,$157.08)

\boxed{$157.08}min($157.0825,$157.08)=$157.08​Thus $628.33 lies just below exact equality; the excess branch remains slightly smaller.

Diagnostic edge calculation 2 — monthly $1,256.66

Inputs

D=$1,256.66D=$1,256.66D=$1,256.66F=$942.50F=$942.50F=$942.5025% branch:

0.25×$1,256.66=$314.1650.25\times $1,256.66

$314.1650.25×$1,256.66=$314.165Excess-over-floor branch:

$1,256.66−$942.50=$314.16$1,256.66-$942.50

$314.16$1,256.66−$942.50=$314.16Exact lesser branch:

min⁡($314.165,$314.16)=$314.16\min($314.165,$314.16)

\boxed{$314.16}min($314.165,$314.16)=$314.16​Again, the displayed amount lies just below exact algebraic equality.

Rounding hold

MCA §25-13-301(2) directs that the amount of the execution be stated in dollars and cents, rejecting fractions of a cent. That provision does not establish how every employer must round a fractional-cent result produced within the payroll lesser-of calculation. Montana Code Annotated

Accordingly:

• The two diagnostics show the full-precision branches and their exact lesser values;
• No universal “round up,” “round down,” or “nearest cent” payroll rule is inferred from §25-13-301(2);
• The legal payroll-rounding method remains unresolved; and
• All fifteen original P21 examples and their checked arithmetic remain unchanged.

GROUP 3 — Exact source-cell replacements and provenance

Replacement for P21 S010

P21 S010 — proceedings in aid of execution, Montana Legislature

• https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0030/0250-0140-0010-0030.html — MCA §25-14-103;
• https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0040/0250-0140-0010-0040.html — MCA §25-14-104;
• https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0050/0250-0140-0010-0050.html — MCA §25-14-105;
• https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0070/0250-0140-0010-0070.html — MCA §25-14-107; and
• https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0250/chapter_0140/part_0010/section_0080/0250-0140-0010-0080.html — MCA §25-14-108.

Corrected read limit: §§103–105 and 107 govern examination, denied ownership or indebtedness, testimony, and application of nonexempt property. Section 108 is limited to a referee’s properly made order. It is not independent support for automatic employer default or broad court-order contempt. Montana Code Annotated+4

Replacement for P21 S012

P21 S012 — federal garnishment and minimum-wage authorities

Exact claimed OLRC URLs

• https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t15/s1672/
• https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t15/s1673/
• https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-124/t15/s1674/
• https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t15/s1677/
• https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t29/s206/

Access and version qualification

• Fresh direct attempts to the displayed OLRC routes for §§1672, 1673, and 1674 failed in this session. No blanket statement is made that the statutes or OLRC service were unavailable.
• Section 1677 opened successfully and displayed laws through Public Law 119-120, October 7, 2026. U.S. Code
• Section 206 opened successfully and displayed laws through Public Law 119-120, October 7, 2026; subsection (a)(1)(C) states $7.25. U.S. Code
• The numerical directory segment in an OLRC URL is not itself proof of the displayed currentness header.

Official dated GovInfo alternative

• https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/1673
• https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title15/html/USCODE-2024-title15-chap41-subchapII-sec1673.htm

The official 2024 Edition material was freshly read at printed pp.1550–1551, zero-based PDF indices 0–1. It contains §§1672–1677, including the definitions, lesser-of ceiling, anti-discharge rule, and state-law preservation clause. It is reliable dated federal text but is not represented here as a complete post-2024 amendment audit for §§1672–1674. GovInfo+3

Replacement for P21 S013

P21 S013 — 29 CFR Part 870, eCFR

• https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-D/part-870/subpart-B/section-870.10
• https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-D/part-870/subpart-B/section-870.11
• https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-V/subchapter-D/part-870/subpart-C/section-870.51

Fresh status: All three sections were read from the eCFR displaying Title 29 as current through October 22, 2026 and last amended October 14, 2026. eCFR+2

Read limits:

• §870.10 supplies the lesser-of formula, pay-period conversion method, and controlling paid-or-payable date;
• §870.11 supplies exclusions and aggregation/priority illustrations;
• §870.51 states that the federal ceiling is not merely an affirmative defense;
• Dollar illustrations tied to the 1991 $4.25 minimum are historical, not current dollar thresholds. eCFR+3

Replacement for P21 S021

P21 S021 — Montana Judicial Branch forms

Freshly read landing pages:

• https://courts.mt.gov/forms/civilforms
• https://courts.mt.gov/forms/judgement

The pages identify execution forms and describe judgment collection at an operational level. Montana Courts+1

Exact Word-form URLs:

1. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/forms/civil/city_jp/writ_exe.doc
2. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/forms/civil/district/writ_exec.doc
3. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/forms/civil/district/execution.doc
4. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/forms/civil/district/seizure.doc
5. https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/forms/civil/district/writ_exec_transc_jud.doc

Each direct Word-form fetch returned an unsupported application/msword content-type response. Therefore:

• The form titles and official locations are verified;
• The individual form bodies were not read;
• Their revision dates and every field remain unverified;
• No employer-answer form, employer-fee form, or substantive safe harbor is inferred merely from the links. (Invalid URL)

Opinion and pinpoint replacements

P21 S018 — In re Marriage of Winters

Correct locator:

• ¶54 begins on printed page 18 / zero-based PDF index 17;
• ¶54 continues on printed page 19 / PDF index 18; and
• ¶55 is on printed page 19 / PDF index 18.

The material holding remains that the District Court lacked authority to exempt an entire self-employed business account from execution under the cited statutory scheme. The opinion’s $3,000 tools-of-trade figure was the historical amount then in force and is not the current exemption amount. Justia Law+1

Replacement pinpoint: printed pp.18–19 / PDF indices 17–18, not pp.19–20 / indices 18–19.

In re Marriage of Mease

No pinpoint change:

• ¶54’s execution-before-garnishment holding appears on printed page 19 / PDF index 18. Justia Law+1

CBI, Inc. v. McCrea

Source attribution must distinguish the opinions:

• The majority, ¶¶14–18, addressed the statutory exemption-request requirements and affirmed the District Court;
• Justice Baker’s notice and opportunity-to-supplement discussion, ¶¶23–30, is a dissent and is not a majority notice holding. Justia Law+1

Accordingly, P21 may rely on the majority for claim specificity and documentation. It may not attribute Justice Baker’s ¶¶23–30 reasoning to the Court’s majority.

Dorwart and Buxbaum later treatment

Dorwart remains historical due-process and search/seizure background for the former execution regime. Buxbaum, 2003 MT 97, ¶46, overruled Dorwart only to the extent it suggested that MCA §27-8-313 did not provide discretionary attorney-fee authority in a declaratory-judgment action. It did not overrule Dorwart’s execution-related due-process or search-and-seizure holdings. Justia Law+1

No complete subsequent-history or paid-citator claim is made. Current §§25-13-211 and 212 govern the modern statutory notice and hearing procedure.

Salminen v. Morrison & Frampton

The filed opinion caption and docket show:

• 2014 MT 323;
• decided and filed December 2, 2014; and
• disposition: reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

The browser/PDF’s legacy “PROPOSED OPINION” label does not supersede the filed caption and decision date. Justia Law

Paragraphs 23–24, printed pp.10–11/PDF indices 9–10, hold that statutory execution and prompt exemption procedure mattered to whether the pleaded conversion claim could proceed. They do not establish automatic damages, automatic conversion liability, or recovery for every procedural defect. Justia Law+3

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.

The controlling majority discussion is at printed pp.339–342, zero-based PDF indices 2–5. The majority invalidated the Wisconsin prejudgment wage-garnishment procedure at issue, while expressly recognizing that summary procedure may satisfy due process in extraordinary situations and observing that no such special circumstance existed there. GovInfo+3

Justice Harlan’s separate writing begins on printed p.342/PDF index 5; it is a concurrence, not part of Justice Douglas’s majority reasoning. The dissent is likewise separate. GovInfo

P21 therefore remains correct to use Sniadach only as a bounded prejudgment-Wisconsin due-process distinction—not as a universal rule for Montana postjudgment garnishment.

PASS-26 source register

PASS-26 claim register

Coverage and residual gaps

Self-check

Freshly read in this bounded pass

• MCA §§25-13-211, 212, 301, and 402;
• Justice/City Rule 23;
• MCA §§25-14-103, 104, 105, 107, and 108;
• eCFR §§870.10, 870.11, and 870.51;
• OLRC §1677 and §206;
• Official 2024 GovInfo §§1672–1677 pages;
• Montana Judicial Branch execution-form landing pages;
• Winters, Mease, CBI, Dorwart, Buxbaum, Salminen, and Sniadach in the bounded portions identified above.

Not freshly read successfully

• OLRC current routes for §§1672–1674;
• The five Word-form bodies;
• Current DOL Fact Sheet #30 and wage-garnishment page bodies.

Those limits are recorded source by source and are not converted into a blanket unavailability claim.

Preserved without change

• All fifteen P21 worked examples, except the explicit conditional sentence added to Example 13;
• The thirty-five previously checked arithmetic quantities;
• Receipt/service/local-practice, worker-classification, mixed-income, employer-liability, late-exemption, federal-remedy, form-version, and broader enforcement holds;
• No P22, P23, P24, or future P25 conclusion is adopted.

No filing, employer instruction, payroll calculation for an actual person, provider or case lookup, contact, records request, local write, independent-review conclusion, component acceptance, Montana acceptance, parent-dossier acceptance, A066 acceptance, operational approval, or publication-readiness determination occurred.

END S_MT PASS-26.