Spreadsheet checks before running Closing Cost in Montana

What the checker catches

Before you run a “Closing Cost” calculation in Montana with DocketMath, it helps to run spreadsheet checks that catch predictable jurisdiction-driven problems—especially those that can silently skew totals.

Even when DocketMath’s closing-cost calculator is correct, the results can still be thrown off if your spreadsheet inputs don’t match the calculator’s assumptions. The Closing Cost checker is meant to validate the spreadsheet inputs that matter most for Montana workflows, with a focus on timing and jurisdiction defaults.

The most common spreadsheet issues the checker flags

• Wrong or missing date fields

  • Many closing cost workflows rely on a transaction/closing timeline. If your sheet uses blank dates, text-formatted dates, or inconsistent “as of” dates, your outputs can shift by whole periods.
• Inconsistent “term” math

  • Example: one tab assumes a 12-month term while another uses calendar months or a different day-count convention. The checker compares the implied timeline across your spreadsheet so you don’t accidentally mix standards.
• Misapplied limitation-period logic

  • If your spreadsheet includes logic that gates costs, fees, or recovery based on whether something falls within a limitations period, you must be consistent with Montana’s general rule.
  • Montana’s general/default limitations period is 3 years under Montana Code Annotated § 27-2-102(3).
  • No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the material used for this checker—so treat 3 years as the default/general period, not a specialized limit for particular claim categories.
• Currency and rounding mismatches

  • Spreadsheets often mix precision rules: for example, input costs may include cents, but you may round early in one place and late in another. The checker highlights situations where intermediate rounding could change the final sum.

Pitfall to watch: If your spreadsheet uses a limitation-period cutoff (even indirectly) and the underlying dates are off by one day due to text/date formatting, the checker can’t infer your intent—it can only evaluate what the spreadsheet actually calculates. That means “eligibility” logic can flip earlier than you expect.

Montana rule the checker uses (for timing logic)

If your spreadsheet includes any “timeliness” gate or date-based eligibility calculation, the checker aligns that logic to Montana’s general statute of limitations:

Key constraint: This is the general/default period. If your workflow later incorporates claim-type-specific limits, you’ll need separate logic and inputs for those scenarios.

Source note: Montana’s general limitations rule is summarized at: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/montana-personal-injury-laws-and-statutes-of-limitations.html?utm_source=openai

When to run it

Run the checker before you click through to compute closing costs, and right before you finalize any deliverable (export, report, or client-facing numbers).

Run the checker before importing a spreadsheet into the Closing Cost workflow. It is especially helpful when you have multiple entries or when a teammate provided the inputs.

Recommended workflow (practical, spreadsheet-first)

1. Clean and verify inputs

   • Confirm your key dates are real dates (not text).
   • Verify the sheet is using the same “transaction/closing” reference date across tabs.
2. Run the Montana-aware spreadsheet checks

   • Use DocketMath’s jurisdiction-aware Closing Cost checker to validate timing-related fields and the numeric structure it feeds.
3. Then run the Closing Cost calculation

   • Once the checker reports no date-format or timeline inconsistencies, run the calculator with confidence that the inputs won’t drift internally.

When to rerun

Re-run checks whenever any of the following change:

• Any date field is updated (offer date, closing date, “as of” date)
• You change term assumptions (months/years, or a day-count method)
• You alter rounding rules, tax toggles, or fee schedules
• You copy/paste values between worksheets (formatting drift is a common cause of subtle errors)

What to expect if the checker finds problems

A spreadsheet can look “correct” while still being internally inconsistent. For example, one tab may treat a date as a numeric serial while another treats it as text—your totals can diverge without obvious visual cues.

If issues are detected, downstream effects you may see include:

• Totals changing because the calculation effectively moved amounts into a different timeline bucket
• Eligibility logic flipping when a date crosses a cutoff
• Rounding differences changing the last digits of totals

Try the checker

You can try the Closing Cost workflow here: **/tools/closing-cost

Upload the spreadsheet, review the warnings, and then run the calculation once the inputs are clean: Try the checker.

When rules change, rerun the calculation with updated inputs and store the revision in the matter record.

A quick “input-to-output” mental model for spreadsheet checks

Think of the checker as validating the bridge between your spreadsheet inputs and the calculator’s logic. If that bridge is inconsistent—especially around dates and default timing rules—outputs can change even when the calculator hasn’t been modified.

Input fields to double-check

• Reference dates

  • Confirm they are formatted as dates, not strings.
• Timeline assumptions

  • Ensure the spreadsheet uses one timeline convention consistently (calendar months vs. “30-day” style periods, etc.).
• Any timeliness gating

  • If your spreadsheet decides whether to include certain amounts based on a limitations window, the checker uses Montana’s 3-year general/default period:

    • **Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-102(3)
  • Remember: this is the general/default rule only. No claim-type-specific sub-rule is applied in this checker’s logic.

How output changes when checks fail

When checks catch an inconsistency, the most common changes are:

• Period shifts: moving an amount into a different time bucket due to date parsing differences
• Cutoff flips: gating logic including or excluding amounts when eligibility changes
• Rounding drift: slightly different totals caused by rounding in the wrong step or at the wrong time

Quick checklist (use while testing your sheet)

Gentle note: This guidance is aimed at improving spreadsheet reliability and consistency. It isn’t legal advice, and it doesn’t replace reviewing claim-type-specific limitations if your process requires them.

Related reading

• Average closing costs in Alabama — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Alaska — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Arizona — Rule summary with authoritative citations