Worked example: Closing Cost in Montana

5 min read

Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Example inputs

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Closing Cost calculator.

This worked example shows how to estimate closing cost numbers in Montana (US-MT) using DocketMath with jurisdiction-aware rules. It’s written to help you understand the mechanics of the closing-cost calculator and how Montana’s time rules can affect the output—not to provide legal advice.

Scenario snapshot (illustrative)

Assume:

A buyer pays an initial closing cost amount at settlement.
There is an additional timing-driven amount based on whether your timeline falls within Montana’s applicable limitations window.
You want a single estimate from the DocketMath closing-cost calculator for a Montana transaction.

Jurisdiction-aware rule used (Montana)

For this example, we use Montana’s general statute of limitations (SOL) rule:

Montana general SOL period: 3 years
Statute citation: **Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-102(3)
Source (reference): https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/montana-personal-injury-laws-and-statutes-of-limitations.html?utm_source=openai
Important scope statement: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this worked example. So we treat the 3-year general period as the default rather than a specialized variant.

Note: In Montana, § 27-2-102(3) is the general/default SOL period used here because a claim-type-specific sub-rule wasn’t identified for this example. Other legal contexts can change which limitations rule applies.

Example inputs for the DocketMath closing-cost calculator

You’ll typically enter:

Jurisdiction: US-MT
Base closing cost amount (principal portion): $12,500
Event date (start of timing): 2024-06-01
Target date (end date for the estimate): 2027-05-25
Time-base convention: use the calculator’s built-in convention for mapping “within SOL” vs “beyond SOL” timing into the estimate

To keep the worked example focused on the Montana rule, the main numeric variable is whether the date range lands within vs. outside the 3-year default window.

Quick date math for this scenario

From 2024-06-01 to 2027-05-25 is just under 3 years (by about 7 days).
That means the timing is within the general 3-year SOL window under the default rule used for this example.

Example run

Open the calculator at: /tools/closing-cost

Run the Closing Cost calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step-by-step through the run

Select jurisdiction
- Set Jurisdiction = US-MT
Enter timing
- Event date: 2024-06-01
- Target date: 2027-05-25
Enter the base closing cost
- Closing cost amount: $12,500
Run the calculation
- DocketMath applies the Montana general SOL period (3 years) under MCA § 27-2-102(3) as the default timing rule for this worked example.

What the output represents (practical framing)

DocketMath’s closing-cost tool uses your dates to determine which timing “bucket” applies—within the default 3-year period or outside it—and then calculates an adjusted closing cost estimate accordingly.

Because your dates are within 3 years, the tool uses the within-SOL behavior tied to MCA § 27-2-102(3).
The tool’s exact numeric formula (multipliers/adjustments) depends on how the closing-cost calculator is configured, but the core takeaway is: timing location relative to the 3-year boundary drives the adjustment direction.

Output (illustrative)

Use your calculator’s actual output values after you run it. Conceptually, your results should reflect something like:

Input	Value
Jurisdiction	US-MT
Base closing cost	$12,500
Event date	2024-06-01
Target date	2027-05-25
Montana default SOL used	3 years (MCA § 27-2-102(3))
Timing result	Within 3 years
Estimated adjusted closing cost	(calculator output)

Gentle reminder: This is a worked example to show tool mechanics and time-bucket effects. It’s not legal advice and may not match every real-world fact pattern.

Sensitivity check

Next, test how the estimate changes when you move the target date across the Montana 3-year boundary.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Sensitivity test setup

Keep everything constant:

Jurisdiction: US-MT
Base closing cost: $12,500
Event date: 2024-06-01

Change only the target date, using three points:

Case A (comfortably within): 2027-03-01
Case B (just inside boundary): 2027-05-25 (the main example)
Case C (just outside boundary): 2027-06-01

Sensitivity results (expected behavior pattern)

Case	Target date	Relationship to 3-year window	Expected calculator behavior
A	2027-03-01	Within 3 years	Uses within-SOL bucket
B	2027-05-25	Within 3 years	Uses within-SOL bucket
C	2027-06-01	Beyond 3 years by ~1 day	Switches to beyond-SOL bucket

What changes in the output?

In a time-bucket design, the key change typically isn’t “the numbers update smoothly”—it’s that the bucket flips at the boundary:

Cases A and B should produce the same bucket logic because both are within the default 3-year period.
Case C crosses the SOL threshold, so DocketMath should apply the outside-SOL behavior, which usually changes the adjusted closing cost estimate.

Pitfall: Don’t treat a small date change as trivial. If the calculator uses a hard threshold for “within” vs “beyond,” even a move of days can switch buckets.

Applying the Montana citation correctly

This sensitivity test depends on the general/default Montana SOL rule for this example:

Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-102(3): 3-year general period

Because this worked example does not identify a claim-type-specific sub-rule, the decision boundary remains the general 3-year period.