1 thought on “Updated testimony for SB 336 requiring STRs”
bcpoaPost author
Hi neighbors –
Tomorrow, April 3, there’s a House Local Goverment hearing for SB 336, which injects Short Term Rentals in most places.
If you followed last year’s Short Term Rental (STR) hearings before the Planning & Zoning commission, you may recall that the Property Rights Coalition advised people opposing STRs to form HOAs to ban them. Ironically, they’re now trying to modify the interpretation of STRs in covenants and HOAs to permit them, against the prevailing interpretation of existing contracts. This is, quite simply, using the government to gain leverage in private disputes.
The first two sections of SB 336 seek to change the rules of interpretation for covenants and HOAs:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short-term rentals. (1) Unless the clear and express terms of a covenant provide otherwise, a short-term rental is a residential use of property and is not a commercial, business, or other use. (2) As used in this section, “short-term rental” has the same meaning as provided in 15-68-101.
(Section 2 does the same for homeowners’ associations.)
The implication is that your covenants can ban commercial uses and rentals of less than 30 days – sensible terms one might implement to prevent short term rentals – but unless your governing documents used the precise language required by SB 336, it will overturn your contract with its own interpretation.
Notice that the language doesn’t limit this application to future contracts. There are two problems with this:
2. It conflicts with existing case law and statute. Quoting BCPOA’s attorney Erin Arnold:
What is unclear to me, is how courts will resolve the conflict between SB 336 and existing rules of interpretation established through case law. A creative court might find a way around SB 336 to rely on precedent. There also appears to be a conflict with existing statute. Section 28-3-306, MCA, for example, provides that if the terms of a contract are ambiguous, the terms “must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that that the promisee understood it.” This requires the court to consider extrinsic evidence but, at the same time, SB 336 prohibits the court from doing so. For existing covenants, there was no SB 336 for the parties to contemplate, so does that mean other extrinsic evidence is still allowed? How SB 336 will apply retroactively is going to have to be resolved through litigation.
This is not merely theoretical. Here’s Stephanie Baucus, attorney for the Property Rights Coalition, arguing before the MT Supreme Court to overturn the interpretation of a private contract:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoO6eOqMRM
This case seems like a likely target for the bill, and a cautionary tale for reliance on the sanctity of contracts.
SB 336 has other problems as well, like defining commercial STRs as residential, even when they may never contain a bona fide resident. It makes zoning harder by preventing jurisdictions from having local diversity in regulation. It grandfathers uses, even if they constitute zoning violations. And it sets a bad precedent for micromanagement of uses from Helena. A recent letter to the committee detailing some of these issues is posted here https://bcpoa.net/2025/03/updated-testimony-for-sb-336-requiring-strs/ .
What to do?
Please express yourself to the legislature. You can state your position in a few words, or attach a lengthy document, as you wish.
You can use the “participation” link on the committee web page, at
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
Hi neighbors –
Tomorrow, April 3, there’s a House Local Goverment hearing for SB 336, which injects Short Term Rentals in most places.
If you followed last year’s Short Term Rental (STR) hearings before the Planning & Zoning commission, you may recall that the Property Rights Coalition advised people opposing STRs to form HOAs to ban them. Ironically, they’re now trying to modify the interpretation of STRs in covenants and HOAs to permit them, against the prevailing interpretation of existing contracts. This is, quite simply, using the government to gain leverage in private disputes.
The first two sections of SB 336 seek to change the rules of interpretation for covenants and HOAs:
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Short-term rentals. (1) Unless the clear and express terms of a covenant provide otherwise, a short-term rental is a residential use of property and is not a commercial, business, or other use. (2) As used in this section, “short-term rental” has the same meaning as provided in 15-68-101.
(Section 2 does the same for homeowners’ associations.)
The implication is that your covenants can ban commercial uses and rentals of less than 30 days – sensible terms one might implement to prevent short term rentals – but unless your governing documents used the precise language required by SB 336, it will overturn your contract with its own interpretation.
Notice that the language doesn’t limit this application to future contracts. There are two problems with this:
1. It’s potentially an unconstitutional ex post impairment of private contracts. “No ex post facto law nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges, franchises, or immunities, shall be passed by the legislature.” https://archive.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0020/part_0010/section_0310/0000-0020-0010-0310.html
2. It conflicts with existing case law and statute. Quoting BCPOA’s attorney Erin Arnold:
What is unclear to me, is how courts will resolve the conflict between SB 336 and existing rules of interpretation established through case law. A creative court might find a way around SB 336 to rely on precedent. There also appears to be a conflict with existing statute. Section 28-3-306, MCA, for example, provides that if the terms of a contract are ambiguous, the terms “must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that that the promisee understood it.” This requires the court to consider extrinsic evidence but, at the same time, SB 336 prohibits the court from doing so. For existing covenants, there was no SB 336 for the parties to contemplate, so does that mean other extrinsic evidence is still allowed? How SB 336 will apply retroactively is going to have to be resolved through litigation.
This is not merely theoretical. Here’s Stephanie Baucus, attorney for the Property Rights Coalition, arguing before the MT Supreme Court to overturn the interpretation of a private contract:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deoO6eOqMRM
This case seems like a likely target for the bill, and a cautionary tale for reliance on the sanctity of contracts.
SB 336 has other problems as well, like defining commercial STRs as residential, even when they may never contain a bona fide resident. It makes zoning harder by preventing jurisdictions from having local diversity in regulation. It grandfathers uses, even if they constitute zoning violations. And it sets a bad precedent for micromanagement of uses from Helena. A recent letter to the committee detailing some of these issues is posted here https://bcpoa.net/2025/03/updated-testimony-for-sb-336-requiring-strs/ .
What to do?
Please express yourself to the legislature. You can state your position in a few words, or attach a lengthy document, as you wish.
You can use the “participation” link on the committee web page, at
https://committees.legmt.gov/#/standingCommittees/24
or email the committee members:
Larry.Brewster@legmt.gov
Courtenay.Sprunger@legmt.gov
Ed.Stafman@legmt.gov
Marta.Bertoglio@legmt.gov
Sherry.Essmann@legmt.gov
Steven.Gist@legmt.gov
Marc.Lee@legmt.gov
Kerri.Seekins-Crowe@legmt.gov
Curtis.Cochran@legmt.gov
Steve.Fitzpatrick@legmt.gov
Denise.Joy@legmt.gov
Greg.Overstreet@legmt.gov
Peter.Strand@legmt.gov
Pete.Elverum@legmt.gov
Shelly.Fyant@legmt.gov
Kelly.Kortum@legmt.gov
Linda.Reksten@legmt.gov