As each surveyor came to different conclusions about the location of the rear corners of the properties, and as each disregarded certain monuments found in the course of determining the boundaries, there remains an issue of material fact as to those boundaries. The trial court thus erred in granting summary judgment to the appellees on this ground. See, e.g., Gillis v. Buchheit, 232 Ga. App. 126, 128 (1) ( 500 SE2d 38) (1998). Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The Buchheits now appeal judgment on a jury verdict in the Gillises' favor. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 232 Ga. App. 126 ( 500 S.E.2d 38) (1998). As stated in Gillis, Mr. Gillis purchased his and his wife's lots from George Clarke, Sr., and George Clarke, Jr., in 1956.
However, based on the proffer by Jakobsen's attorney, it is clear Robillard was going to testify regarding his survey of Jakobsen's property. Georgia courts have consistently recognized surveyors as experts. See generally, Georgia Dept. of Trans. v. Edwards, 267 Ga. 733, 738 (1) ( 482 S.E.2d 260) (1997); Gillis v. Buchheit, 232 Ga. App. 126, 128 (1) ( 500 S.E.2d 38) (1998); Davis v. Williams, 165 Ga. App. 45, 46 (3) ( 299 S.E.2d 102) (1983); Cheek v. Wainwright, 246 Ga. 171, 174 (3) ( 269 S.E.2d 443) (1980). In his appellate brief, Jakobsen fails to mention any "lay testimony" that Robillard would have given, stating simply that Robillard would have "describe[d] conditions he observed on the property of Jakobsen."