Montana Attorney General Opinion 16-221

Opinion No. 221. Schools-Abandoned Districts-Build- ings, Sale of-Property, Sale of- Auction-County Superintendent of Schools. HELD: The county superintendent of schools may sell the building and , property of an abandoned school, properly appraised, at a noticed pub- lic auction. Mr. Lee Butler Farr County Attorney Sidney, Montana January 2, 1936. From letters received from you and from Mr. A. G. Horsley, Superintend- ent of Schools, it is our understanding that after School District No. 59 of Richland County was abandoned last February and its territory apportioned to Districts 13 and 42, it was con- sidered desirable to sell the school building and some minor articles ot personal property. District No. 13 and District No. 42 each appointed an appraiser, and the property was ap- praised at $300. A date was set for the sale, and the sale was advertised in the Fairview and Sidney papers. On the day advertised for the sale Mr. Horsley, acting for the two schooi districts, h~ld a public auction and sold the property for $280. That amount was paid in cash. The ques- tion has now arisen whether the sale was legal and valid, and. you have asked that we render an opinion upon it. In our opinion, when the district was abandoned, the property in ques- tion became the property of either District No. 13 or District No. 42. (See Vol. 8, Report and Official Opin- ions of the Attorney General, p. 171.) I quote from an opinion rendered by this office on March 3, 1933: "I find no provision in the statutes which prescribes the procedure to be fol- l~wed .by school trustees in selling or dlsposmg of school buildings. In the absence of such specific provision, I am of the opinion that the trustees should be left free to use their own discretion in selecting the mode of procedure and that their action would be upheld if the mode of procedure is reasonably well adapted to the ac- complishment of the end. * * *." Accordingly, it is our opinion that the procedure followed by the school districts and the county superintend- ent in this case was suitable and suf- ficient and that the sale was legal and valid. I infer from the correspondence that the question has been raised by a party who is contemplating purchas- ing from the party who bought at the auction sale. Since, in our opinion, the sale was valid, objections raised by individuals at this time are of no concern to the school authorities.