[brief] It was therefore not reversible error for the Trial Court to allow both sides to present testimony from title experts.  This discretionary decision by the Trial Court should be granted deference on appeal and should not be disturbed by this Court.  The basic premise of [...]’s motion to bar the testimony of [...] was that all that [...] did was to interpret the deeds in the chain of title and to testify regarding their meaning, and that this was a legal function for the Trial Court to undertake.  In support of this argument, [...] noted that experts “may not render opinions on matters which involve a question of the law”, Healy v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 287 N.J. Super. 407, 413 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996).  The Borough disagrees that this is all that [...] did.  While it might be true that the construction of a deed is a question of law and is not subject to expert testimony, when there is an ambiguity present, there is a factual issue presented and extrinsic evidence can be considered.  Hofer v. Carina, 4 N.J. 244, 250 (1950); See also Woodhaven Lumber & Millwork, Inc. v. Monmouth Design & Dev. Co., 2014 WL 1326994, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 4, 2014) (“If the meaning of an ambiguous provision depends upon the resolution of factual disputes, then the meaning of the doubtful provision is itself a question of fact. ”).  Under these circumstances, input from an expert's specialized knowledge as to the use of specific terms and practices within an industry would assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, and therefore should be admissible pursuant to N.J.R.E. 702.  That is one of the many things that [...] provided through his testimony.  [...], who serves as the Executive Director of the [...], also provided testimony about what the title industry would review and would consider important in insuring title on a property, including a property with riparian rights issues such as the one which is the subject of this litigation.  Moreover, [...]’s argument that it is improper for an expert to review and to testify about the meaning of deeds is belied by the fact that it presented evidence from its own title experts doing the same exact thing.  [...] cannot have it both ways.  It was [...] that brought an attorney (i.e. [...]) into this case as a title expert to provide expert testimony based upon his 42 years as a practicing attorney in New Jersey specializing in property law and land title litigation.  The Borough intentionally retained an expert with similar qualifications to those held by [...] in order to be able to adequately rebut [...]’s report.  For [...] to move to bar the testimony of the Borough’s title expert while its own title expert witness is similarly situated as an attorney would have been not only improper, but unjust.  Finally, it must be remembered that this was a bench trial held in the Chancery Division, and that therefore there was no legitimate concern about whether the scope of the expert testimony provided would confuse the factfinder since this was not a jury trial.  For all of these reasons, the Trial Court properly exercised his discretion to allow each side to present testimony from title experts.  This discretionary decision by the Trial Court should be granted deference on appeal and should not be disturbed by this Court.