Generally revise statutes of limitations laws relating to real property
Summary
HB 301 revises Montana’s statute of limitations rules for claims involving injury to real property. The bill states that a real-property injury claim arises when the conduct causing the injury is complete, even if the resulting harm continues, and when the property owner knows or has reason to know of the injury. It also preserves the general discovery rule for claims that are concealed or self-concealing, or where the defendant’s actions prevent discovery, while excluding certain actions governed by existing limitations in 27-2-205.
The bill further provides that if a real-property injury claim accrues and is not filed within the applicable limitation period, the claim is barred not only against the current owner but also against all subsequent owners of the property. In effect, HB 301 clarifies when the clock starts for real-property injury claims and limits later litigation over the same injury by future owners.
Impact
HB 301 would amend section 27-2-102, MCA, to define accrual and discovery rules specifically for injury-to-real-property claims and to make clear that untimely claims are barred as to both present and future owners. The bill would affect property owners, potential plaintiffs, insurers, and parties responsible for property damage or contamination by tightening the timing rules for filing suit and reducing uncertainty about when claims arise.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed but generally workable support in the House, passing committee and floor votes by modest margins, but it did not advance in the Senate and died in standing committee. The available vote history suggests the measure was considered seriously and moved through the House, yet it encountered enough resistance or lack of momentum in the Senate to stall before final passage.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on whether the bill unfairly shortens or clarifies the time available to bring property-damage claims, especially for injuries that continue over time or are discovered later. Supporters would view the bill as providing certainty and finality for landowners and defendants, while opponents may have been concerned that it could cut off claims before all damages are fully realized or before subsequent owners discover latent problems. The Senate committee’s decision to table the bill indicates unresolved concerns despite the House’s approval.