Montana HOA Assessment Limits

Key Findings

Montana is a declaration-driven state. The statute supplies a collection remedy (the common-expense lien) and an allocation rule (undivided-interest shares), but it sets no ceiling on how large or how fast assessments may grow and gives owners no statutory vote to ratify or reject a budget. The operative limits live in each community's recorded instruments. For multi-state operators, this means California-style caps and Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) ratification playbooks do not transfer to Montana — every matter requires reading the specific declaration, covenants, and bylaws. Recent legislative attempts to revise condominium and covenant law failed, and the recent appellate record confirms that covenant validity and integrated-document interpretation, not statutory caps, govern Montana assessment disputes.

Section 1: Overview

Montana puts no percentage cap on assessment increases and offers no statutory mechanism for budget ratification or owner rejection. Assessment authority — and its limits — come from the recorded declaration for condominiums and from the recorded covenants for planned-community homeowners' associations (HOAs).¹ Condominium assessments run under the Montana Unit Ownership Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-101 et seq., which charges common expenses to unit owners according to each owner's percentage of undivided interest in the common elements and secures unpaid common expenses through a recorded lien.² The association — acting through its board or manager under the declaration and bylaws — sets regular increases, with no statutory ceiling and no requirement that owners ratify or reject a budget.³ Special assessments draw their authority and any limits from the same declaration and bylaws, because the Act prescribes no separate special-assessment procedure.⁴ On the national assessment-limit spectrum, Montana stands with the declaration-driven states: it neither caps increases by statute as California does, nor builds in the budget-veto mechanism found in states that adopted UCIOA.⁵ The sections below detail the statutory framework, the practical procedures, the recent legislative and judicial record, and where Montana stands relative to other states.

Section 2: The assessment framework

2A. Authority to levy and allocate assessments

Condominium assessment authority in Montana flows from the Montana Unit Ownership Act, an older horizontal-property statute first enacted in 1965 (Sec. 1, Ch. 120, Laws of 1965), rather than a modern Uniform Condominium Act or UCIOA enactment.⁶ A condominium falls under the Act only when the property owner expressly submits it by recording a declaration in the county where the property sits.⁷ Once submitted, Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-501 controls allocation: common profits distribute among — and common expenses charge to — unit owners according to each owner's percentage of undivided interest in the common elements.⁸ That percentage is fixed in the declaration under § 70-23-403, tied to the relative value of each unit at the date of the declaration; it may not change unless all unit owners having an interest in the common element agree and record an amendment.⁹ The bylaws supply the collection mechanism: § 70-23-308 requires the bylaws to state the manner of collecting from unit owners their share of the common expenses.¹⁰ For planned-community HOAs that are not condominiums, no comprehensive statute governs. These associations levy and collect assessments under their recorded covenants and, because most Montana associations incorporate as nonprofit corporations, under the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-113 et seq.¹¹ The general corporate powers in § 35-2-118 — to make contracts, hold and dispose of property, and carry on the corporation's activities — supply the entity-law backdrop, while the substantive assessment obligation remains a creature of the covenants.¹²

2B. Limits on regular assessment increases

Montana imposes no percentage cap on regular assessment increases, for either condominiums or HOAs. Nothing in the Montana Unit Ownership Act limits the year-over-year size of a common-expense assessment, and nothing in Title 70, Chapter 17, Part 9 (the HOA-restriction provisions) or the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act caps assessment growth.¹³ There is also no statutory budget-ratification or budget-rejection mechanism. Montana has not enacted the UCIOA provision under which a board-adopted budget takes effect unless owners reject it at a ratification meeting, and the Unit Ownership Act contains no equivalent owner-veto step.¹⁴ The practical result is that a condominium board or manager may set and raise regular assessments to the extent the declaration and bylaws permit, constrained only by those governing documents and by the board's fiduciary and corporate duties — not by any numeric statutory ceiling. Any cap in a given community therefore lives in the recorded declaration, covenants, or bylaws, which may require a membership vote above a stated dollar or percentage threshold, limit annual increases, or condition special assessments on owner approval. Where the governing documents are silent, the board's authority is correspondingly broad. This is the central compliance point for Montana: the governing documents, not the statute, define the ceiling, the approval threshold, and the procedure — so close reading of the recorded instruments is essential in every Montana matter.

2C. Special assessments, the lien, and the declaration

The Montana Unit Ownership Act prescribes no distinct special-assessment procedure or cap; for condominiums, the authority to levy a special assessment and any limits on it come from the declaration and bylaws. What the Act does supply is a collection remedy. Under Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-607, when an association of unit owners furnishes services, labor, or material lawfully chargeable as common expenses, it holds a lien on the individual unit and its appurtenant undivided interest in the common elements for the reasonable value of those common expenses — provided the association records a verified claim stating the account due, the owner's name, and a description sufficient to identify the unit.¹⁵ That lien takes priority over all other liens or encumbrances on the unit, except tax and assessment liens and a first mortgage or trust indenture of record.¹⁶ The association enforces the lien by foreclosure under § 70-23-608, and § 70-23-611 makes a grantee jointly and severally liable with the grantor for unpaid common-expense charges accrued up to the time of conveyance, subject to a statement of unpaid charges the manager must furnish on request.¹⁷ For non-condominium HOAs, the assessment lien is again a function of the covenants; Title 70, Chapter 17, Part 9 recognizes that a homeowners' association "may be authorized to impose assessments that, if unpaid, may become a lien on a member's real property," but it creates no assessment lien of its own.¹⁸

Section 3: Assessment limits and procedures in practice

A. Regular assessment increase procedure

For CONDOMINIUMS, the regular-assessment increase procedure is declaration-defined and bylaw-defined: the bylaws must state the manner of collecting each owner's share of common expenses under Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-308, and allocation tracks the undivided-interest percentages fixed in the declaration under §§ 70-23-501 and 70-23-403.¹⁹ For HOAS, the increase procedure is set entirely by the recorded covenants and bylaws, with the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act supplying default corporate-governance rules for board and member action where the documents are silent.²⁰

B. Special assessment procedure

For CONDOMINIUMS, the Montana Unit Ownership Act prescribes no special-assessment procedure, so any notice, vote, or cap requirement is declaration-defined and bylaw-defined.²¹ For HOAS, special assessments are likewise governed by the covenants and bylaws; Montana statutes neither authorize nor limit them directly.

C. Caps, ceilings, and override mechanisms

For both CONDOMINIUMS and HOAS, Montana supplies no percentage cap on regular or special assessments and no statutory ratification or rejection mechanism; any cap, ceiling, or supermajority override is declaration-defined.²² Where a declaration or covenant sets a numeric ceiling or an owner-approval threshold, that document controls. The only statutory amendment constraint specific to condominiums is the unanimous-consent rule in § 70-23-403 for altering the undivided-interest percentages that drive allocation.²³

D. Notice, documentation, and disclosure tied to assessments

For CONDOMINIUMS, the recording requirements of the common-expense lien under § 70-23-607 (a verified, recorded claim) and the resale documentation in the Act govern assessment-related disclosure, while owner-facing notice of an increase is declaration-defined and bylaw-defined.²⁴ For HOAS, assessment notice and disclosure are governed by the covenants, bylaws, and the Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act's general meeting and record provisions, with no HOA-specific statutory assessment-notice mandate.²⁵

Section 4: Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No bill enacted in the 2023 (68th) or 2025 (69th) regular sessions amended the Montana Unit Ownership Act assessment or lien provisions or the HOA-restriction provisions at § 70-17-901. The relevant measures were introduced and then failed.

B. Recent appellate rulings

Montana has no intermediate appellate court; civil disputes are tried in the Montana District Courts, and appeals go directly to the Montana Supreme Court.²⁸ Two recent Montana Supreme Court decisions bear on the association authority that underlies assessments, though neither squarely construed the Unit Ownership Act assessment lien.

C. Active legislative debates

Recurring sessions have seen proposals to revise HOA and condominium covenant law — including the failed 2023 and 2025 bills — but Montana has not moved toward statutory assessment caps or a budget-ratification mechanism. The active debate centers on covenant enforcement and owner use rights, not assessment limits.

Section 5: National positioning and related coverage

Montana sits in the declaration-driven group on the national assessment-limit spectrum, distinct from two other groups. The first group consists of statutory-cap states, the clearest example being California, where Cal. Civ. Code § 5605(b) provides that "the board may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20 percent greater than the regular assessment for the association's preceding fiscal year or impose special assessments which in the aggregate exceed 5 percent of the budgeted gross expenses of the association for that fiscal year without the approval of a majority of a quorum of members."³¹ The second group consists of states that adopted UCIOA and its budget-ratification mechanism, under which a board-adopted budget takes effect unless owners reject it; per the Community Associations Institute, UCIOA-enacting states are Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and West Virginia (1982 version) and Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, and Washington (2008 version).³² Montana belongs to the third group — the declaration-driven states — alongside states such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia, where assessment authority and limits come from the recorded instruments rather than a statutory cap or veto. For multi-state operators entering Montana, compliance hinges on reading each community's declaration and covenants rather than applying a statewide formula; playbooks built around California-style caps or UCIOA ratification meetings do not transfer. Montana also runs its condominiums under an older Unit Ownership Act dating to 1965 and offers only limited HOA-specific provisions at Title 70, Chapter 17, Part 9, so governing-document drafting and recordkeeping carry more weight than statutory procedure.³³

Recommendations

1. Start with the recorded instruments, not the statute. Because Montana sets no cap and no ratification step, the first compliance action in any matter is to pull the recorded declaration (condominiums) or covenants and bylaws (HOAs) and identify whether they contain an increase ceiling, a special-assessment approval threshold, or a notice requirement. Treat the documents as the controlling ceiling.
2. For condominiums, verify the lien mechanics before collection. Confirm that any unpaid amount qualifies as a "common expense" chargeable under the declaration and bylaws, then follow § 70-23-607 recording requirements precisely — a verified claim with account, owner name, and unit description — to preserve the lien's priority over all liens except tax and assessment liens and a first mortgage or trust indenture.
3. Confirm covenant validity before levying or enforcing. After Charlie's Win, check expiration and renewal-vote thresholds; an association whose covenants have lapsed for want of the required supermajority cannot enforce assessments. Calendar renewal deadlines and document vote tallies against the exact threshold in the instrument.
4. Do not import out-of-state caps. Multi-state operators should remove California 20/5 caps and UCIOA ratification-meeting steps from their Montana procedures and replace them with a document-driven workflow.
5. Benchmarks that would change this guidance: enactment of a Montana bill that adds a percentage cap, a budget-ratification or rejection mechanism, or a statutory assessment-lien procedure for non-condominium HOAs; a Montana Supreme Court decision construing the § 70-23-607 lien or the validity of a condominium assessment increase. None of these has occurred as of June 9, 2026, but each would trigger a revision of this page.

Caveats

• Montana has no dedicated HOA or condominium regulator; the Montana Secretary of State handles only corporate status, so no agency guidance supplements the statutes and documents.
• The two recent Montana Supreme Court decisions cited address covenant validity and interpretation, not the Unit Ownership Act assessment lien directly; they are relevant background for assessment authority rather than holdings on assessment caps.
• The UCIOA-enacting-states list reflects the Community Associations Institute's compilation and differs from some informal groupings; Maine and Georgia are not UCIOA-enactment states, while Nevada and West Virginia are. Georgia is grouped here among declaration-driven states for the assessment-limit comparison.
• Individual declarations and covenants frequently contain their own caps, approval thresholds, and notice rules; the absence of a statutory cap does not mean a given community lacks one. Always read the specific recorded instruments.

1. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23 (Unit Ownership Act), table of contents, leg.mt.gov ↩
2. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-501 (common profits and expenses), leg.mt.gov ↩
3. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23, pt. 3 (Creation, Declaration and Bylaws), leg.mt.gov ↩
4. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23, pt. 6 (Conveyances, Liens, and Common Expenses), leg.mt.gov ↩
5. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23 (no statutory cap or ratification provision), leg.mt.gov ↩
6. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-403, history note "En. Sec. 6, Ch. 120, L. 1965," leg.mt.gov ↩
7. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-102 (definitions; "declaration," "property submitted to the provisions of this chapter"), leg.mt.gov ↩
8. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-501, leg.mt.gov ↩
9. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-403 (undivided interest; unanimous-consent alteration rule), leg.mt.gov ↩
10. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-308 (contents of bylaws; manner of collecting common expenses), leg.mt.gov ↩
11. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 35, ch. 2 (Montana Nonprofit Corporation Act, § 35-2-113 et seq.), leg.mt.gov ↩
12. Mont. Code Ann. § 35-2-118 (general powers), leg.mt.gov ↩
13. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-901 (HOA restrictions; no assessment cap), leg.mt.gov ↩
14. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23 (no budget-ratification mechanism), leg.mt.gov ↩
15. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-607 (claim for common expenses; priority of lien; recording), leg.mt.gov ↩
16. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-607(1) (lien priority; exceptions for tax/assessment liens and first mortgage or trust indenture), leg.mt.gov ↩
17. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-611 (joint liability of grantor and grantee); see § 70-23-608 (foreclosure), leg.mt.gov ↩
18. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-17-901(6) (defining HOA authorized to impose assessments that may become a lien if unpaid), leg.mt.gov ↩
19. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-308 with §§ 70-23-501, 70-23-403, leg.mt.gov ↩
20. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 35, ch. 2 (default corporate governance), leg.mt.gov ↩
21. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23, pt. 6 (no special-assessment procedure), leg.mt.gov ↩
22. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 23 (no cap, ceiling, or override mechanism), leg.mt.gov ↩
23. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-403 (unanimous-consent rule for altering undivided-interest percentages), leg.mt.gov ↩
24. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-23-607 (recording of verified claim), leg.mt.gov ↩
25. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 35, ch. 2 (meeting and record provisions), leg.mt.gov ↩
26. Montana Legislature, HB 362 (2025), amending § 70-23-403; died in process May 20, 2025, bills.legmt.gov ↩
27. Montana Legislature, HB 761 (2025) and HB 683 / SB 479 (2023), amending § 70-17-901; none enacted, leg.mt.gov ↩
28. Montana Supreme Court (highest court of appeal; no intermediate appellate court), courts.mt.gov ↩
29. Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Ass'n, 2025 MT 47, DA 24-0502 (Mar. 11, 2025), Montana Supreme Court ↩
30. Brandt v. R&R Mountain Escapes, LLC, 2025 MT 155, DA 23-0716 (July 22, 2025), Montana Supreme Court ↩
31. Cal. Civ. Code § 5605(b), California Legislative Information ↩
32. Community Associations Institute, UCIOA-enacting states (1982 and 2008 versions), caionline.org ↩
33. Mont. Code Ann. tit. 70, ch. 17, pt. 9 (Restrictions Pertaining to Homeowners' Associations), leg.mt.gov ↩