Cal. Civ. Code § 70-33-403
Unconscionability -- Court Discretion
Operative Text
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if the court, as a matter of law, finds that: (a) a rental agreement or any provision of the rental agreement is unconscionable, the court, in order to avoid an unconscionable result, may refuse to enforce the agreement or may enforce the remainder of the agreement without the unconscionable provision result; or (b) a settlement in which a party waives or agrees to forego a claim or right under this chapter or under a rental agreement is unconscionable, the court, in order to avoid an unconscionable result, may refuse to enforce the settlement, may enforce the remainder of the settlement without the unconscionable provision, or may limit the application of any unconscionable provision. (2) A finding pursuant to subsection (1) may not be made based on a responsibility outlined in a rental agreement that: (a) a tenant maintain a lot in accordance with 70-33-321 ; or (b) a landlord maintain the premises in accordance with 70-33-303 . (3) If unconscionability is put into issue by a party or by the court upon its own motion, the parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to the setting, purpose, and effect of the rental agreement or settlement to aid the court in making its determination.
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-33-403 gives courts the authority to decline to enforce a rental agreement, or specific provisions within one, if the agreement or a settlement is found unconscionable as a matter of law. A court may also choose to enforce the remaining, non-unconscionable portions of the agreement or settlement rather than voiding it entirely. Importantly, this provision does not apply to standard maintenance responsibilities assigned to tenants under § 70-33-321 or to landlords under § 70-33-303, and any party raising an unconscionability claim must be given a fair opportunity to present relevant evidence.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under Mont. Code Ann. § 70-33-403, property owners and managers generally ensure that the terms of their rental agreements are fair, balanced, and not one-sided in ways that could be deemed unconscionable by a court. Compliant operators are mindful that courts retain discretion to strike individual clauses or refuse to enforce an entire agreement if unconscionability is established, though standard maintenance obligations assigned by statute are shielded from this analysis. Reviewing lease terms for clarity and fairness, particularly around waivers or settlements of tenant rights, is a practice commonly associated with reducing exposure under this provision.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Mont. Code Ann. § 70-33-403 provides tenants with a legal avenue to challenge rental agreement terms or settlements they believe are unconscionable, either by raising the issue themselves or through the court acting on its own motion. If unconscionability is put at issue, tenants have the right to present evidence about the context, purpose, and effect of the agreement or settlement before the court makes its determination. Tenants who believe a lease clause or a settlement waiving their rights may be unconscionable can explore this issue with a tenant-rights organization or legal aid provider familiar with Montana's mobile home lot tenancy laws.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 22, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation