March 8, 1994
Gary Thompson Chief of Field Operations
N.C. Geodetic Survey Section Post Office Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: 1993 Session Laws, Chapter 207, (An Act to Establish the Boundary Line Between Carteret and Craven Counties)
Dear Mr. Thompson:
On December 13, 1993, you submitted a written request for guidance by this office as to whether Carteret and Craven Counties, with assistance from the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, can deviate from a specific range of coordinates prescribed by the General Assembly in the abovereferenced legislation. Please note that this memorandum constitutes an advisory opinion to the
N.C. Geodetic Survey Section as to whether it can survey and monument the Carteret-Craven boundary line in a manner contrary to the legislature’s express coordinates. Therefore, you should advise Carteret and Craven County officials to solicit the legal opinion and advice of their respective county attorney for further specific guidance should they require it.
During our telephone conversation on December 14, 1993, I suggested that the plain meaning of Chapter 207 indicated that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section had no legal justification for deviating from the specific range of coordinates as set forth by the General Assembly. My subsequent research of controlling constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as applicable case law supports my initial conclusion.
I. Factual Background
The N.C. Geodetic Survey Section of the Division of Land Resources has been assisting Carteret and Craven County officials in their survey and monumentation of a portion of their county boundary, pursuant to Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws (hereinafter "Act"). The Act is premised on a map of the Carteret-Craven Boundary dated May 28, 1992. Each call in the boundary line description includes a certain range of coordinates due to the fact that the coordinates were determined from aerial photography, not by a metes and bounds survey. Thus, certain calls in the boundary line description are noted with either a "+" symbol or "-" symbol. According to the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, the "+" and "-" symbols employed by the legislature in the boundary line description provide a limited range of area within which the exact boundary line must be located and established on the ground.
At the request of Carteret and Craven County officials, the Act’s boundary line follows existing property lines between the two counties to the extent practicable. Subsequent to the Act’s ratification on June 23, 1993, however, two landowners requested that Carteret and Craven County officials include additional parcels in either Carteret or Craven Counties. Evidently, the counties made a mistake regarding the county boundary along one subdivision. As now written, three lots of the subdivision will be in a separate county from the remaining lots. The N.C. Geodetic Survey Section has advised this office that incorporating these additional parcels will deviate from the legislature’s prescribed range of coordinates in Chapter 207.
II. Applicable Law
Article VII §1 of the N.C. Constitution empowers the General Assembly to fix all county boundaries. The General Assembly may change the boundaries of existing counties at its pleasure. Dare County Commissioners v. Currituck County Commissioners, 95 N.C. 189 (1886); Mills v. Williams, 33 N.C. 558 (1850). Pursuant to its constitutional authority, on June 23, 1993, the N.C. General Assembly enacted Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws.
The Act must be read in light of several well established principles of statutory construction.
Legislative intent controls the meaning of a statute; and in ascertaining this intent, a court must consider the act as a whole, weighing the language of the statute, its spirit, and that which the statute seeks to accomplish. The statute’s words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning, unless the context requires them to be construed differently.
Hyler v. GTE Products Co., 333 N.C. 258, 262, 425 S.E.2d 698 (1993); Evans v. AT&T Technologies, 332 N.C. 78, 86, 418 S.E.2d 503 (1992).
"Statutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the statute. The legislative purpose of a statute is first ascertained by examining the statute’s plain language." Correll v. Division of Social Services, 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232 (1992); Electric Supply Co. v. Swaim Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651, 656, 403 S.E.2d 291 (1988). If the language of a statute is clear and not ambiguous, courts "must conclude that the legislature intended the statute to be implemented according to the plain meaning of its terms." Hyler, 333 N.C. at 262. See also, Lemmons v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc., 322 N.C. 271, 276, 367 S.E.2d 655, reh’g denied, 322
N.C. 610, 370 S.E.2d 247 (1988). "[I]n the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary, technical terms or terms of art when used in a statute are presumed to have been used with their technical meaning." Henry v. A.C. Lawrence Leather Co., 234 N.C. 126, 129, 66 S.E.2d 693 (1951).
- III.
- Analysis
- A.
- Can the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section deviate from the range of coordinates prescribed by the General Assembly?
Consistent with the foregoing traditional principles of statutory construction, it appears that the
N.C. Geodetic Survey Section may not deviate from the range of coordinates currently prescribed under the Act. The Act’s plain language demonstrates the clear intent of the legislature to establish a new portion of boundary line between the respective counties. Consistent with our conversations, the common dividing line between the counties, as now set forth under the Act, appears clear and is not ambiguous. The boundary line begins at a definite point of origin, and continues through a series of calls to a point in the existing county boundary line. Thus, the counties, with the assistance of the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section, may locate and establish the boundary line anywhere within the prescribed range, but not beyond it.
Any attempt to establish the boundary line outside the legislature’s prescribed range would violate not only the plain meaning of the Act, but also undermine the Act’s very purpose. It is presumed that the legislature understood the import of the calls used to express its intent as to where the boundary line must fall. The technical terms used in the Act must be used with their technical meaning. Therefore, the boundary line description enacted by the legislature must be followed by the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section.
The Act’s avowed purpose is to fix a portion of the boundary line between Carteret and Craven counties. Construing the Act to allow county officials the power to enact variances to the statutorily prescribed boundary line would infringe upon the General Assembly’s plenary power to fix all county boundaries. Assuming that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section was allowed to deviate from the calls of the Act for these two landowners, what legal justification could be relied upon to prevent other property owners along the boundary line from demanding location in one county or another? Such an ad hoc method of establishing the county boundary is obviously not what the General Assembly intended by passing this Act. On the contrary, the purpose of this Act is to fix the boundary line without further controversy on the matter, not to foster additional disputes on where the line must be established.
B. How does N.C. Gen. Stat. §153-18 apply?
Section 6 of the Act requires that "[t]he portion of the boundary between Carteret and Craven Counties affected by this act shall be surveyed and mapped by Carteret and Craven Counties in accordance with G.S. §153-18." This statute sets forth, inter alia, the procedure by which counties may resolve disputes as to uncertain or disputed boundaries. It further requires the recording of the final plat of boundaries in the local register of deeds offices; grants the power of entry onto private property for the purpose of surveying; and, provides for the equal division of costs incurred with locating, surveying, marking and mapping of the boundary.
When two statutes deal with common subject matter, one in "general and comprehensive terms" and one in a more minute and definite way, they should be read together and harmonized, if possible, to effectuate consistent legislative policy. Batten v. N.C. Dept. of Correction, 326 N.C. 338, 344, 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990). Since the legislature, pursuant to Chapter 207 of the 1993 Session Laws, already has decided where the boundary line will be established, the only area of possible dispute is within the range of prescribed coordinates. Therefore, consistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, the procedures under G.S. §153-18 for resolving disputes as to uncertain or disputed boundaries would apply only if the counties disagreed as to the location of the boundary within the legislature’s prescribed range of coordinates. To conclude otherwise would violate the plain language and purpose of the Act. Otherwise, the provisions of G.S. §15318 apply accordingly.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it does not appear that the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section has any legal justification for deviating from the prescribed boundary line calls as set forth in the Act. Carteret and Craven Counties, with the assistance of the N.C. Geodetic Survey Section may negotiate and resolve the boundary line within the range set forth by the legislature, but may not expand the range for the boundary line, unless authorized by the legislature in a subsequent amendment. To find otherwise would both violate the plain meaning of the Act and undermine its very purpose. The remedy for owners of the subdivision lots at issue is in the legislature and not in the courts.
Attached please find a copy of the Act and G.S. 153-18 for your ready reference. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Daniel C. Oakley Senior Deputy Attorney General
David W. Berry Associate Attorney General