The core idea travels the same everywhere: an association that fines you for a fence, a parked trailer, or a short-term rental while ignoring the identical thing next door is applying its own rules unevenly, and Montana courts, like courts in most states, recognize general equitable defenses, waiver, estoppel, and inconsistent enforcement, to covenant enforcement when that happens. What Montana doesn't have is a statute that spells out the test. Compare that to § 70-23-506's actual language: a condo owner must comply "with the bylaws and with the rules adopted pursuant to the bylaws," and noncompliance is grounds for an action, but the section doesn't independently require that a rule be distributed to owners or applied consistently before it's enforceable. Any adoption-process argument you make has to trace back to what your own bylaws' rule-making clause, required by § 70-23-308, actually demands, not to a statewide standard.
There's one genuinely useful statutory hook, and it cuts in your favor regardless of which way the pattern points. Section 70-23-506 gives the right to sue over a bylaws, rules, or covenant violation to "the association of unit owners or... an aggrieved unit owner," not to the association alone. That means if the board itself is selectively enforcing, letting some owners slide while fining you, you're not limited to complaining to the same people doing the picking and choosing; the statute contemplates an aggrieved owner bringing the action directly. Subdivision HOA owners have no equivalent state provision, so that route runs through the declaration and general Montana contract and equity law instead.
Building the record
Section 70-17-901 layers on one more angle. If the rule being unevenly enforced against you is itself a "type of use" restriction that got harsher after you bought, and the board never made you agree to it in writing, you may not even need the selective-enforcement argument; the restriction may not be enforceable against you at all. And § 70-23-606's inspection right, though narrow, still gets a condo owner the manager's dated financial records, useful for showing whether charges tied to the same kind of violation landed on some owners' accounts and not others'.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
§ 70-23-506, MCA
Ties condo enforcement to rules adopted pursuant to the bylaws and gives an aggrieved unit owner, not just the association, the right to sue over a violation.
§ 70-17-901, MCA
Can moot an uneven-enforcement fight outright if the rule being enforced is a use restriction adopted after purchase without the owner's written consent.
§ 70-23-606, MCA
Gives condo owners access to the manager's dated common-expense records, useful for documenting a pattern of inconsistent charges.
Step by step
How to document and raise selective enforcement in Montana
Build the evidentiary record that supports a selective-enforcement or waiver defense to a Montana HOA or condo violation charge.
- 01
Identify the exact rule and where it comes from
Pin down the specific bylaw, rule, or covenant clause, and, for condo owners, confirm it was adopted the way your bylaws' own rule-making clause, required under § 70-23-308, says it had to be.
- 02
Photograph and date comparable violations
Document other lots or units with the same condition that were never cited. Use addresses or lot and unit numbers, not the names of the neighbors living there.
- 03
Check the rule's age against your purchase date
If it's a use restriction that got harsher after you bought, raise § 70-17-901 directly. It may resolve the fight before selective enforcement even needs to come up.
- 04
Pull what records exist
Condo owners can request the manager's chronological common-expense records under § 70-23-606 to look for a pattern in what got charged, and to whom.
- 05
Know you may not need the board's permission to act
Section 70-23-506 lets an aggrieved condo owner bring the action directly. If the board won't budge, that statute is your own route, not just a complaint you're stuck making to the same people ignoring the pattern.
Straight answers
Common questions
Is selective enforcement a real defense in Montana?
It can be. Montana courts, like courts in most states, recognize general equitable defenses, including waiver and inconsistent enforcement, to covenant enforcement when an association applies a restriction unevenly, even though no Montana statute names the doctrine directly.
Does Montana law require rules to be evenly enforced?
There's no dedicated statute requiring even enforcement. The closest hook is § 70-23-506, which ties condo enforcement to rules adopted pursuant to the bylaws, and general equitable principles courts apply when an association enforces selectively.
Can I sue over a violation myself, or does it have to be the association?
For condos, § 70-23-506 lets an aggrieved unit owner bring the action directly, not just the association. Subdivision HOA owners have no equivalent statutory right of action and generally have to rely on the declaration and general Montana contract and equity law.
What if the rule I'm accused of breaking is newer than my purchase?
Raise § 70-17-901. If the rule makes your types of use more onerous than what applied when you bought, and you never agreed to it in writing, it may be unenforceable against you regardless of how consistently the board applies it to others.