How to run Settlement Allocator in DocketMath for Montana

Step-by-step

This guide explains how to run Settlement Allocator in DocketMath for Montana (US-MT) using jurisdiction-aware rules tied to Mont. R. Civ. P. 23. The goal is to help you produce an allocator output that reflects the general/default time period used for Montana under Rule 23—without adding claim-type-specific adjustments.

1) Open the tool and select the Montana calculator flow

1. Go to the primary call-to-action: /tools/settlement-allocator
2. Ensure the calculator is set to Montana (US-MT).
3. Confirm you’re using the Settlement Allocator calculator flow (not a different allocator workflow).

2) Gather the facts DocketMath needs

Before you enter anything, compile these items for your allocation run:

• Settlement amount (the total to be allocated)
• List of claimants / buckets you’ll allocate across (each claimant/bucket needs the inputs the tool requests)
• Weights or bases for allocation (i.e., the values you want DocketMath to use to determine each claimant’s share)
• Time-period inputs required by the jurisdiction rule logic (Rule 23’s default/generic period logic in Montana)

Because DocketMath uses jurisdiction-aware rules, the time-period section is where Montana-specific behavior typically shows up first. Be sure you’re using the general/default period logic rather than any assumption about different treatment by claim type.

3) Enter inputs in DocketMath using Montana rules (US-MT)

Proceed through the DocketMath fields in this order:

• Jurisdiction selection

  • Choose Montana (US-MT) so the tool applies the Mont. R. Civ. P. 23-based default.
• Settlement amount

  • Enter the total settlement pool you want allocated.
• Claimants / allocation entities

  • Add each claimant (or each allocation bucket, depending on the workflow presented in the DocketMath UI).
• Allocation basis / weights

  • Provide each claimant’s allocation-driving values (whatever the Settlement Allocator template asks for—these determine how shares are computed).
• Time period / period logic

  • Use the default period governed by Mont. R. Civ. P. 23, because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified for the relevant settlement allocation time period.

Friendly reminder: This is not legal advice. It’s a practical “how-to” for running the tool consistently with the Montana Rule 23 general/default framework.

4) Verify jurisdiction-aware settings before calculating

Before clicking Calculate, do a quick review:

• ✅ Montana (US-MT) is selected
• ✅ The tool indicates Rule 23-based default period behavior (or otherwise shows the applied jurisdiction rule set)
• ✅ You did not introduce claim-type-specific period overrides (since none were found)

If the DocketMath UI displays what period logic is being applied, confirm it matches the general/default approach.

5) Run the allocator and review outputs

After calculation, DocketMath typically returns:

• Allocated share per claimant/bucket
• Dollar amount per claimant/bucket
• Totals that reconcile to the settlement amount (when configured/expected by the tool)

Sanity-check the results:

• Do larger weights/bases correspond to larger allocations?
• Do the total dollars across claimants/buckets equal the settlement pool?
• Are there any outliers (very small/very large allocations) that would suggest you entered the wrong basis or missed a claimant?

6) Export or capture results for your records

If DocketMath offers export options (or if you can copy the results):

• Save allocated amounts
• Save percent shares
• Save any reconciliation totals shown by the tool

This helps if you need to rerun later after adjusting a settlement amount, changing weights, or revisiting time-period inputs.

7) Rerun with controlled changes (inputs → outputs)

A practical approach is to change one input at a time to see how it affects outputs:

• Increase settlement amount by 10%

  • Expect allocations to scale upward proportionally (unless the tool applies caps/floors).
• Adjust a claimant’s weight/basis

  • Expect that claimant’s allocation to increase relative to others.
• Change time-period inputs within the Montana default framework

  • Expect shares/dollars to shift if those inputs influence the allocation basis.

Common pitfalls

These are the most common issues that can derail Montana settlement allocation runs in DocketMath:

• Using the wrong jurisdiction code

  • If US-MT isn’t selected, DocketMath may apply a different ruleset and the time-period behavior may not reflect Mont. R. Civ. P. 23.
• Assuming claim-type-specific sub-rules exist for the period

  • For this time period, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. Use the general/default period instead.
• Mismatching numeric formats

  • Examples: entering a settlement amount with commas as text, using the wrong unit for time-period fields, or leaving required numeric fields blank.
  • Result: the tool may reject inputs or compute using unintended values.
• Not reconciling totals after a run

  • Outputs should generally reconcile to the total settlement pool (when expected by the tool’s setup).
  • If totals don’t add up, check:

    • missing claimants/buckets
    • weights/bases not saved correctly
    • time-period inputs not applying as you expected
• Changing multiple inputs at once

  • If you rerun and adjust settlement amount, weights, and time period all at once, it becomes difficult to identify what actually caused changes in the output.

Try it

Use this quick checklist to run your first Montana allocator calculation end-to-end in DocketMath:

• Open /tools/settlement-allocator
• Select Montana (US-MT)
• Enter the settlement amount
• Add each claimant/bucket you want to allocate
• Provide the allocation bases/weights required by the DocketMath Settlement Allocator template
• Use the Montana Rule 23 general/default period (no claim-type-specific sub-rule identified)
• Click Calculate
• Confirm:

  • totals reconcile to the settlement amount
  • larger weights/bases produce larger allocations
• Save/export the results for your records

For Montana-specific grounding, DocketMath’s jurisdiction logic is tied to:

• Mont. R. Civ. P. 23 (source document): https://courts.mt.gov/Portals/189/cao/MRCP-10012023.pdf

Practical pitfall: If you enter a time period reflecting another jurisdiction’s framework, the output may look plausible but won’t align with Montana’s Rule 23 general/default logic as applied in DocketMath.

Related reading

• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Ohio — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations