With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the emphasized portions are improper material for an affidavit supporting a summary judgment motion and should have been stricken by the trial court. We disagree. First, we observe that, on appeal, the Meyers do not dispute Boofter's professional credentials and other qualifications as a land surveyor. Indeed, in the portion of the Boofter Affidavit that the Meyers do not challenge, Boofter affirms that he is a registered land surveyor and routinely performs surveys of real property. Thus, Boofter qualifies as an expert witness. See, e.g., Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369, 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (acknowledging that a professional land surveyor who owns his own land surveying business is an expert); see also Longabaugh v. Johnson, 163 Ind.App. 108, 111, 321 N.E.2d 865, 867 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Indiana Evidence Rule 702 governs expert

A: recognizing that a surveyor was an expert witness
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify
C: holding that counsels failure to call an expert rebuttal witness does not constitute ineffectiveness the pcra petitioner must demonstrate that an expert witness was available who would have offered testimony designed to advance his cause
D: holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness
A.