Free Montana Lead Paint Disclosure

A Montana lead paint disclosure is the federally mandated form a landlord delivers to a prospective tenant before any lease of residential property built before 1978. It carries the fixed federal lead warning statement, states the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint and hazards, lists the records being handed over, documents the tenant’s receipt of the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, captures any agent’s acknowledgment, and is signed and dated by every party. Authority is 42 U.S.C. 4852d (Section 1018 of Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992), implemented at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F (EPA) and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A (HUD). Montana imposes no lead paint disclosure statute of its own — we checked the Montana Code Annotated section by section, and the duty here is purely federal. What Montana does add is an independent habitability duty under MCA 70-24-303 for deteriorated paint, covered in our Montana habitability laws guide. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly what the rule requires.

▶ Watch overview

Montana lead paint disclosure overview

The lead paint disclosure — often called the Section 1018 disclosure, after the 1992 statute that created it — is the formal federal notice a Montana landlord delivers to a prospective tenant for any residential property built before 1978. It does four things in one document.

First, it puts the tenant on notice of potential lead exposure through the federally mandated lead warning statement, the fixed language at 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) that must be attached to or included within the lease.

Second, it transmits the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint or hazards in the dwelling. The lessor picks one of exactly two positions: known lead-based paint or hazards are present, with a description of what is known; or the lessor has no knowledge of lead-based paint or hazards in the housing. There is no third box, and there is no “maybe”.

Third, it transmits any reports the lessor holds from prior inspections, risk assessments, or hazard-reduction work. The lessor either provides copies of all available records and lists them, or affirmatively states that no reports or records exist.

Fourth, it documents the tenant’s receipt of the disclosure and of the EPA pamphlet. The signed acknowledgment is the landlord’s primary defence in any later EPA or HUD inquiry or private civil action.

The disclosure is not optional and the duty is not waivable by agreement. A pre-1978 Montana rental leased without one exposes the landlord to government civil penalties and to a tenant’s private action for triple damages plus fees. Compliance takes fifteen minutes; non-compliance is the most expensive paperwork failure in pre-1978 rental practice. Montana’s housing stock makes this unusually live: much of the rental inventory in Butte, Anaconda, Helena, Great Falls, Missoula, and Billings predates 1978 by decades, so the disclosure is the default in Montana rather than the exception.

No. Montana has no state lead paint disclosure statute, and this page will not invent one. Unlike a handful of states that layer their own lead registry, testing, or certification regimes on top of the federal rule, Montana does not. Every substantive disclosure requirement described on this page comes from federal law: 42 U.S.C. 4852d, 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F, and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A.

That is an easy claim to make and a hard one to prove, so here is the actual work behind it. We read the Montana Code Annotated on the Legislature’s own site rather than trusting a summary:

• The Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977, MCA Title 70, chapter 24. It has four parts — General Provisions, Rental Agreements, Rights and Duties of the Parties, and Remedies. We enumerated every section title in all four. Not one mentions lead. The chapter’s only disclosure duty is MCA 70-24-301, “Duty to disclose name of person responsible,” which requires the landlord to disclose in writing, at or before the commencement of the tenancy, the name and address of the person authorized to manage the premises and of the owner or a person authorized to act for the owner for service of process. That is a duty about identity, not about paint.
• MCA Title 50, Health and Safety. The chapter index runs from Administration of Public Health Laws through Nuclear Regulation. There is no lead chapter. There is not even a lead heading.
• MCA Title 75, Environmental Protection. There is a Radon Control chapter. There is a Waste and Litter Control chapter. There is no lead chapter.

So when a competing page tells you to comply with “the Montana lead law,” ask it for the citation. There is no section number to give, because there is no section.

Two further points fill out the Montana picture without adding a disclosure duty:

• Montana does not certify lead contractors. Montana is not among the states EPA has authorized to run their own Renovation, Repair and Painting program, nor to run their own lead abatement and evaluation program. EPA administers both directly in Montana. This is worth stating precisely because it is the most commonly conflated pair on this topic: a lead-contractor certification regime is not a landlord disclosure duty. Several states have the former and no state-level version of the latter. Montana has neither.
• Local ordinances. A Montana city or county could in principle run a rental-registration or housing-inspection program touching lead. Those would be municipal, not state law, and we do not assert that any specific Montana municipality has one. Check with your local code enforcement or city-county health department before assuming none applies. A city ordinance is never a state statute, and no honest page should present one as the other.

Because the obligation is federal rather than state-specific, the same disclosure applies to a rental in any state — our federal lead-based paint disclosure form is the generic version of the Montana form on this page. For the broader set of Montana duties that do come from the MCA, see our Montana landlord-tenant laws overview.

Most guides list “three things” a landlord must do. The regulation is more precise than that. 40 CFR 745.113(b) requires six distinct elements in the lease or an attachment to it. A disclosure missing any one of them is defective, regardless of how professional the form looks. This is the checklist to audit your own paperwork against.

The item nobody mentions: the lessee’s agent

The (b)(5) item is scoped by the regulation itself, not by anybody’s form. It bites “when one or more agents are involved in the transaction to lease target housing on behalf of the lessor” — and “agent” is a defined term at 40 CFR 745.103, meaning a party who contracts with a seller or lessor for the purpose of selling or leasing target housing. So the item follows the lessor’s side of the deal. If you use a Montana property manager, that manager owes the (b)(5) statement on every pre-1978 tenancy they place, and their failure is not a defence for you — 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3) makes knowing violators jointly and severally liable, which means the tenant can collect the whole judgment from whichever of you is easier to reach. The one relief the rule does give you is narrow and sits at 40 CFR 745.113(d): you are not responsible for the failure of a lessee’s legal representative — one who receives all compensation from the lessee — to pass the disclosure materials on, provided every required party actually completed and signed the certification.

The disclosure duty attaches to “target housing,” and 40 CFR 745.103 defines it as any housing constructed prior to 1978, with two exclusions. The date is the date of original construction — not the date of the paint, not the date of the last renovation, and not the date anybody last thought about lead.

The definition was amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416, published 12 November 2024). It now reads, in the regulation’s own words: “Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing).”

What counts as a 0-bedroom dwelling is also defined, and more broadly than the name suggests. 40 CFR 745.103: “0-bedroom dwelling means any residential dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area. The term includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings.”

For Montana that reaches more stock than landlords expect: downtown studio and efficiency units in Missoula, Bozeman, and Billings; rented single rooms in a house; university dormitory housing. Note the neat overlap on that last one — dormitory housing is outside the federal rule as a 0-bedroom dwelling, and housing provided by the Montana university system is separately outside the state Residential Landlord and Tenant Act altogether under MCA 70-24-104(1). Two different bodies of law, excluding the same buildings for entirely different reasons.

Housing for the elderly has its own definition at 40 CFR 745.103: retirement communities or similar types of housing reserved for households composed of one or more persons 62 years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy. A Montana senior community that meets that definition is outside the rule — until a child under six moves in or is expected to, at which point the exclusion lifts and the disclosure duty attaches.

The conservative approach for everything else: when the build year is uncertain, disclose. There is no penalty for disclosing on a 1985 building and a severe one for guessing wrong on a 1977 one. Verify against the county clerk and recorder’s records or the Montana Department of Revenue property record rather than the listing copy.

40 CFR 745.101 sets out the transaction-level exemptions, and there are exactly four. They are narrow, and — a point worth stating plainly because the target-housing definition creates confusion here — none of these four carries a child condition.

Everything else is covered. There is no exemption for a landlord with one unit, no exemption for renting to family, no exemption for a month-to-month tenancy, and no exemption for a building you are certain has never had lead paint. Note what is not on the list: 40 CFR 745.107(a) frames the duty as arising “before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease target housing that is not otherwise an exempt transaction.” Exempt means one of these four. Nothing else.

The signed form alone does not discharge the duty. The lessee must also receive the EPA lead hazard information pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home. This is a delivery obligation, separate from and in addition to the disclosure itself, and it is the element landlords most often skip because the form’s (d) item makes it look like a box to tick rather than a document to hand over.

The pamphlet is free. EPA publishes it in English, Spanish, and several other languages, and the current edition is downloadable from epa.gov. There is no cost, no registration, and no reason to be short of copies. The National Lead Information Center, 1-800-424-LEAD, will also supply them.

What the tenant initials on the (d) item is a statement that they received the pamphlet. If they did not receive it, the initial is a false statement on a certified federal document — procured by you. That is a materially worse position than simply having failed to deliver the pamphlet, because it converts an oversight into a paper trail suggesting knowledge. Hand the pamphlet over, then collect the initial.

Practical Montana note: keep a record of which edition you delivered. EPA has revised the pamphlet over the years, and an enforcement inquiry that asks what the tenant received is much easier to answer when your file says “2024 edition, handed at signing, initials at item (d)” than when it says nothing at all.

The federal rule does not require a Montana landlord to test for lead, to inspect for lead, or to remove lead. EPA states this plainly. The rule is a disclosure rule, not an abatement rule. It compels honesty about what you know; it does not compel you to go and find out.

This surprises landlords who assume the form is a trap requiring an inspection they cannot afford. It is not. If the unit has never been tested and you hold no reports, “no knowledge of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing” is the honest, lawful, and correct answer — and it is the answer most Montana landlords will give.

What “no knowledge” cannot do is launder information you actually have. The box is a statement of fact about your knowledge, and knowledge includes:

• Any lead inspection report or risk assessment in your files, however old.
• Any abatement or hazard-reduction record for the unit or the building.
• A prior tenant’s child with an elevated blood-lead result in your unit, or a health-department contact about it.
• A contractor’s finding — verbal or written — during renovation work.
• A building-wide evaluation covering common areas or other units in a multi-unit property you own.
• What your property manager knows. Their knowledge is realistically imputed to you, and in any event they carry their own (b)(5) obligation.

The asymmetry is stark. Ticking “no knowledge” while a report sits in a drawer converts an ordinary compliance failure into a knowing violation — which is precisely the trigger for treble damages under 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3). “I forgot the file existed” is a poor answer once the file is produced in discovery.

The other half of the same coin: if you do know, say what you know. 40 CFR 745.113(b)(2) asks for the additional information available, and gives examples — the basis for the determination, the location of the lead-based paint or hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces. “Yes, some lead paint” is a defective disclosure. “1954 construction; 2019 XRF inspection found lead-based paint on original window sashes and trim in the two north bedrooms; sashes intact, trim showing minor chipping at the sill” is a compliant one.

A Montana landlord does not owe a tenant a 10-day inspection period. That obligation exists only in sales. This is the single most replicated error on this topic, and it appears on form sites, in blog posts, and — as of this writing — in at least one live AI-generated answer for this exact query.

The provision is 40 CFR 745.110(a), and it says: “Before a purchaser is obligated under any contract to purchase target housing, the seller shall permit the purchaser a 10-day period (unless the parties mutually agree, in writing, upon a different period of time) to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards.”

Every operative noun in that sentence is a sales noun: purchaser, contract to purchase, seller. The statutory source, 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C), is scoped the same way. And the structure of the disclosure regulation confirms it: 40 CFR 745.113(a) — the sales disclosure — carries the received-or-waived statement at (a)(5). 40 CFR 745.113(b) — the lease disclosure — has no inspection item at all. There is nothing to waive on a lease because there is nothing to grant.

What you may do: offer a prospective Montana tenant a look at the unit, or time to bring in an inspector, entirely voluntarily. It is good practice and it costs you nothing. What you must not do: print a line on the lease disclosure claiming the tenant was offered and waived a 10-day inspection right. That fabricates a waiver of a right the tenant never had, on a document everybody signs certifying its accuracy. It adds a false statement to a federal certification in exchange for protecting you from nothing.

The generator on this page does not print such a line, on purpose.

The same statute covers both, but the two disclosures are not the same document and the differences matter.

• The sales disclosure lives at 40 CFR 745.113(a), and it has its own lead warning statement — longer than the lease version, addressed to purchasers, and recommending a risk assessment or inspection prior to purchase.
• The 10-day inspection opportunity applies (40 CFR 745.110(a)), and 745.110(b) lets the purchaser waive it in writing. Item (a)(5) of the sales disclosure captures which happened.
• The foreclosure exemption applies to sales and only to sales (40 CFR 745.101(a)).
• Montana adds no seller lead disclosure either. Montana has no mandatory statewide seller property-disclosure statute for residential real estate at all; the seller’s federal lead duty is the same 42 U.S.C. 4852d duty. Montana’s methamphetamine notice at MCA 75-10-1305 does apply to a sale as well as a lease, and the Montana Mold Disclosure Act reaches sales too — its optional safe-harbour statement at MCA 70-16-703(1) is available on a purchase and sale, and its mandatory known-mold disclosure at 70-16-703(2) applies on a contract for purchase just as it does on a lease.

The form on this page is the lease version. Do not use it for a sale, and do not use a sales form for a lease — a sales form used on a Montana tenancy is exactly how the phantom 10-day tenant right gets into circulation in the first place.

Complete the fields below to generate a federally compliant Montana lead paint disclosure. The generated PDF reproduces the lead warning statement, the lessor’s disclosure items, the lessee’s acknowledgment items, the agent’s acknowledgment, and the certification of accuracy with signature and date lines for each party.

40 CFR 745.113(c)(1) requires the lessor to retain a copy of the completed disclosure for no less than three years from the commencement date of the leasing period. That is the rule. It is short, it is cheap to comply with, and it is the difference between a Montana enforcement inquiry that ends at the document-request stage and one that does not.

What to keep, as a set:

• The executed disclosure with every initial and signature.
• A note of which EPA pamphlet edition was delivered and when.
• Copies of every record and report you listed and handed over.
• If delivered electronically, the electronic record and the tenant’s consent to electronic delivery.

Three years is a floor, not a target, and the regulation itself says so. 40 CFR 745.113(c)(2) provides that the recordkeeping requirement “is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee’s or purchaser’s rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).”

Yes, you can do this by email and e-signature — and Montana adds a wrinkle that catches portal-based landlords.

The federal permission comes from the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001. EPA attaches conditions to electronic delivery of the lead disclosure: give a clear statement of the right to receive paper documents, explain the procedure to withdraw consent and its consequences, explain how to access and retain the electronic records, and obtain the tenant’s consent in a way that demonstrates they can actually access the materials.

Montana has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act at MCA Title 30, chapter 18, part 1. MCA 30-18-101 gives it its short title; the operative provisions run through 30-18-118. The one to know here is MCA 30-18-107, “Provision of information in writing — presentation of records”:

A link alone is not delivery under either body of law. The tenant must receive the complete documents — disclosure and pamphlet — in a form they can open, read, and keep. Retain the electronic record for the same three years, and retain the consent with it.

The leasing disclosure is not the only lead duty a Montana landlord has, and the second one catches sitting tenants who were disclosed to years ago.

The EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting rule — 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E, distinct from the Subpart F disclosure rule — governs work that disturbs painted surfaces in pre-1978 housing. In outline:

• Certified firm, lead-safe work practices. Renovation for compensation that disturbs painted surfaces above the rule’s minimum thresholds must be performed by an EPA-certified firm using certified renovators and lead-safe practices. In Montana that certification is federal — EPA administers the RRP program here because Montana is not an EPA-authorized RRP state.
• Occupant notice before work. Occupants must receive lead hazard information no more than 60 days before work begins.
• Common areas. Where common areas of multi-unit target housing are affected, 40 CFR 745.84(b) gives the renovation firm a choice: either deliver written notice to each affected unit describing the general nature and locations of the planned work and its expected starting and ending dates, or post informational signs where the affected occupants are likely to see them. Either way the pamphlet has to be made available, and the firm must prepare, sign, and date a statement describing the steps it took.
• Your own crew counts. The rule reaches the work, not the invoice. A Montana landlord who does renovation work on their own rental units is generally within scope; “I did it myself” is not an exemption.

The practical failure mode: a landlord completes a clean leasing disclosure in March, then replaces the windows in an occupied 1951 Butte duplex in August with an uncertified handyman and no 60-day notice. The disclosure was fine. The renovation was a separate violation, and the one likeliest to actually put lead dust in the unit — which is where a disclosure violation stops being paperwork and starts being a personal-injury claim.

Search this topic and you will be told the penalty is a specific number per violation. You will see several different numbers, none dated, most copied from an old page. Here is the accurate structure, which has two entirely separate limbs.

Limb one: the tenant’s private action, 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3). Any person who knowingly violates the section is jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee for three times the amount of damages that person incurred. This multiplier is written into the statute; it does not move with inflation. Section 4852d(b)(4) adds that a court may award court costs together with reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees to a prevailing plaintiff. The fee-shifting is what makes small disclosure violations economically worth suing