In re the Transfer Territory from Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to Froid Elementary School District No. 65, 381 Mont. 145

Froid Elementary and local electors petitioned the Roosevelt County Superintendent to transfer territory from Poplar to Froid; Poplar opposed. The county superintendent appointed Paul Huber as deputy to hear and decide the petition.
Huber scheduled and conducted an April 23, 2013 hearing; a court reporter recorded testimony from 21 speakers, who were not sworn. Poplar cross‑examined some speakers and did not object to unsworn testimony or Huber’s appointment at the hearing.
Huber left the record open one week, received post‑hearing submissions, and issued findings and an order approving the transfer. Poplar appealed to district court.
The District Court held § 20‑6‑105, MCA, requires sworn testimony and that Huber’s failure to administer oaths was an abuse of discretion that could not be waived; it vacated Huber’s decision and remanded for a new hearing.
The Supreme Court majority reversed: it held the county superintendent proceedings are excluded from MAPA, Poplar failed to preserve the sworn‑testimony claim, plain‑error review was not warranted, and the district court erred by reaching the merits. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Poplar)	Defendant's Argument (Froid)	Held
Whether § 20‑6‑105 requires testimony under oath at a territory transfer hearing	Statute requires sworn testimony; unsworn statements render decision invalid	No statutory requirement for oath; parties could cross‑examine; Poplar waived objection by failing to object at hearing	Poplar failed to preserve the issue; court may not reach merits absent plain error; holding below reversed
Whether MAPA governs review of county superintendent territory transfer proceedings	MAPA should apply, so agency‑preservation rules control	County superintendents are local units excluded from MAPA; common‑law preservation applies	MAPA does not apply; common‑law (plain‑error) preservation rules govern
Whether failure to object to procedure at hearing constitutes waiver/forfeiture of the issue on appeal	Waiver is not a defense to reversal for abuse of discretion; tribunal obligations cannot be waived	Failure to timely and specifically object forfeits the issue; waiver doctrine may apply	Court distinguished forfeiture/preservation from waiver; Poplar forfeited the issue and did not meet plain‑error standard
Whether plain‑error review should be exercised to address unpreserved procedural error	Exceptional circumstances justify review (per party)	No miscarriage of justice or threat to process integrity shown; plain‑error not met	Plain‑error review denied; issue not properly raised and may not be considered on appeal

Credit Service Co., Inc. v. Crasco, 361 Mont. 487 (procedural standard for appellate review of district court acting in appellate capacity)
In re Petition to Transfer From Dutton, 361 Mont. 103 (definition of abuse of discretion in territory transfer context)
Silva v. City of Columbia Falls, 258 Mont. 329 (decision is arbitrary if random or unreasonable)
Paulson v. Flathead Conservation Dist., 321 Mont. 364 (plain error and preservation principles under common law)
Pinnow v. Mont. State Fund, 340 Mont. 217 (administrative rule cannot create authority absent statute; orders by unauthorized decisionmaker void)
In re Petition to Transfer Territory from High Sch. Dist. No. 6 (Lame Deer), 303 Mont. 204 (exercised plain‑error review in territory transfer case on constitutional delegation ground)
Hurly v. Lake Cabin Dev., LLC, 364 Mont. 425 (definition and proof of waiver)