Montana committee reviews proposal to adopt modern Uniform Common Interest Ownership framework

A legislative interim committee on Monday heard a detailed briefing on House Bill 619/PD22, the draft Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCI OA) adapted for Montana, and heard hours of testimony from Uniform Law Commission advisers and Montana practitioners.

Committee staffer Maddie Krasowski presented the packet of materials—summary of the 2021 model text, a legislative draft PD22 built from HB 619, a statute‑comparison table showing where Montana law already addresses HOA issues, and notes on areas where the committee may want to make policy decisions. Krasowski said the model act is organized into five parts covering definitions and general provisions; creation/alteration/termination of common‑interest communities; management of associations; protections for purchasers; and transition applicability.

Why it matters: committee members were focused on several practical questions that would shape how a Montana law operates: whether the code would unintentionally apply to neighborhoods that have covenants but no formal association, how declaration language and statutory defaults affect consumers and lenders, and how the state should resolve overlaps with Title 35 nonprofit corporation governance.

ULC representative Carl Lisman, who worked on earlier iterations of condominium and common‑interest law, told the panel the model act is deliberately filled with default rules so declarations can be shorter and courts can rely on a standard framework. "The law brings organization to a chaotic area," Lisman said, describing how consistent defaults help buyers, lenders and judges identify deviations from the model.

Jane Sternicki of the Uniform Law Commission said the ULC is available to help tailor the model for Montana, and praised Representative Griffith and the local drafting team for adapting the text.

Montana practitioners raised concerns and tweaks. Title industry and title‑insurance counsel flagged the draft’s lien language (section 62), saying the proposal to treat a recorded declaration itself as perfection of an HOA lien could undermine underwriting assurances that mortgages are senior to association liens. Bill Gowen of the Montana Land Title Association said lenders need a searchable public record trail; under the current draft he said it would be unclear whether a lender’s purchase‑money mortgage would be protected.

Developers and land‑use attorneys pressed provisions on declarant control and on master associations. Developer Zachary Oakland told the committee a low threshold for delegating executive powers to a master association could allow for profit managers or outside entities to obtain control and then lock owners into contracts that are hard to undo. "It's like a gym membership that's easy to enter and very hard to leave," Oakland said of the delegation/termination mechanisms in the draft.

Public commenter and longtime real‑estate practitioner Susan Swimley, who participated in the Montana drafting group, described the package as an opportunity to reduce litigation and to modernize a 1960s‑era condo code. She said the goal was to give ordinary property owners clearer default rules so they would not need lawyers to resolve routine disputes.

On interplay with local law: panelists repeatedly confirmed that zoning and other local land‑use laws remain controlling when they conflict with private covenants or a declaration. Carl Lisman and other advisers said the draft can be tailored so that Montana’s approach dovetails with existing local planning and zoning frameworks and that any conflicts should be handled by explicit prior‑statute listings or narrow repealer language where appropriate.

What happens next: committee staff said the UCI OA has substantial support among the state's stakeholders but will likely require further drafting and targeted amendments. Vice Chair Alana Griffith described an off‑record plan to work with the drafting coalition and return a consensus version to the committee for consideration before any formal bill authorization.

Ending: committee members thanked the panelists and scheduled follow‑up stakeholder sessions; staff will circulate redline suggestions and cost/operational analyses for lender‑related amendments and declarant‑control timing.