PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND CONSTITUTION

This article is written by Chukwukere Oluomachukwu Mary, Babcock University, an intern under Lega Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

While originating in Roman and English common law, PTD has gained significant constitutional relevance, especially in jurisdictions like India, the United States, Nigeria, and South Africa. The article examines how courts have interpreted constitutional provisions—such as the right to life, environmental rights, and the doctrine of separation of powers—to reinforce or limit the application of PTD. It concludes that constitutional incorporation or judicial recognition of the Public Trust Doctrine is pivotal for sustainable resource management in the modern era.

KEYWORDS

Constitution, Public Trust Doctrine, Legal Principle, PTD.

 INTRODUCTION

The Public Trust Doctrine serves as a fundamental concept in environmental law. According to the principle, aspects of our natural heritage are not mere possessions but are instead held in a sacred trust by the government for the collective welfare.^[1] The public trust doctrine is a legal principle establishing that certain natural and cultural resources are preserved for public use. These resources—such as air, sea, water, and forests—are considered so crucial to the public that they must be protected and held in trust by the state. Natural resources are regarded as the property of the public, with the government acting as a custodian responsible for preserving and managing them for public benefit.^[2]

The doctrine, having roots in Roman law’s concept of res communes, evolved through the English common law tradition and has since been adapted into the legal systems of many modern nations. The government’s fiduciary responsibility is central to the Public Trust Doctrine, requiring a careful balance between promoting economic growth, including the expansion of trade and industry, and preserving natural resources. In essence, it calls for a harmonious approach that safeguards the environment while pursuing economic objectives.

Initially applied mainly to water bodies, the scope of the doctrine has gradually expanded to include other natural resources. In the United States, most rivers and lakes fall under this doctrine, primarily for purposes such as drinking water and recreation. It also restricts private ownership from extending into ocean territories. Over time, the Public Trust Doctrine has developed into a fundamental judicial tool used to validate government actions that might affect public access to natural resources. By embedding this doctrine into the legal framework, courts have introduced a necessary safeguard against state authorities transferring control of natural resources to private entities. Although its roots lie in ancient legal traditions and it has a long history in the United States, its integration into Indian law is a more recent phenomenon.^[3]

In a constitutional democracy, the scope and legitimacy of any legal doctrine are largely framed by the constitution. Hence, integrating the Public Trust Doctrine into constitutional discourse is both a legal necessity and a democratic imperative. This paper discusses how constitutions accommodate the Public Trust Doctrine, analyzes judicial interpretations, and considers the doctrine’s relevance in contemporary environmental and human rights debates.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

1. Roman and English Foundations

The concept of res communes in Roman law held that certain common properties (air, running water, the sea, and the seashore) were not subject to private ownership but were held collectively for public use.^[4] In the sixth century, Roman law declared that “by the law of nature, these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea.” This has been understood to mean that natural elements like air, water, and coastlines are shared resources, not owned by individuals, but held collectively for everyone’s benefit. This concept was later reinforced in the Magna Carta and eventually became part of English common law. However, when incorporated into English law, the idea was slightly modified—ownership of common resources was vested in the monarch, who was expected to act as a trustee for the people.

The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) has been acknowledged in English courts since at least 1299. A notable example of its application came in the 1980s, when it was used in a landmark case in California to prevent the state’s largest water company from diverting water away from Mono Lake. Despite the lack of direct legal precedent, the doctrine was successfully employed to safeguard the lake and its rich ecosystem for future generations. Although the PTD is considered part of the UK Constitution, its practical use in British courts has been limited, and the extent of its authority remains uncertain.^[5] The English common law has adapted this idea, especially regarding public rights to fish and navigate in tidal waters.

2. American Adaptation

Adopted from the English common law, the Public Trust Doctrine has long been accepted by the US Courts as imposing a duty of environmental stewardship in several states.^[6]As the United States built its legal system, it adopted the English common law, though it adapted and refined some elements over time. When American courts began to address the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD), they concluded that ownership of water bodies and the land beneath them passed to the people of each state upon achieving statehood. This led to an interpretation of the PTD that aligned more closely with its original Roman roots, emphasizing public ownership and access to natural resources.

The first time the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Public Trust Doctrine was in Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). The Court upheld the principle that the public holds a shared right to fish in navigable and tidal waters, as these waters and the lands beneath them are held in trust by the state for the people’s common benefit. This case laid the foundation for the Public Trust Doctrine in the United States, establishing that certain natural resources are to be managed by the government on behalf of the public.^[7] The U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), cemented the PTD by holding that the state could not abdicate control over navigable waters and their underlying lands to private entities if such an action harmed public interests.

CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Although the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is not always directly referenced in constitutional texts, courts have frequently interpreted constitutional provisions—such as the right to life, environmental protections, and the responsibilities of the state—as implicitly incorporating PTD principles.

India: Broad Judicial Interpretation

Given that India’s legal framework is rooted in English common law, which recognizes the public trust doctrine, Indian courts have concluded that PTD forms part of Indian law. Numerous rulings by the Supreme Court and various High Courts have affirmed the doctrine’s place within Indian legal thought. Nevertheless, it has not yet been formally codified in any central environmental legislation. In India, the PTD is most often invoked to limit the government’s authority to transfer or dispose of public property.^[8] India’s Supreme Court, in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, held that the state is the trustee of all natural resources, which are meant for public use and enjoyment. The Court grounded this in article 21 (right to life), 48A (Directive Principle on environmental protection), and 51A(g) (fundamental duty to protect the environment) of the Indian Constitution.

1. United States: Federal and State Perspectives

While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention PTD, federal and state courts have applied it via common law. The doctrine aligns with the constitutional principle of promoting the general welfare under the preamble, and with state constitutional provisions. It is worthy to note however, that efforts to extend the PTD beyond water resources have met resistance in the United States.

2.  Nigeria: A Cautious Recognition

The Nigerian Constitution does not expressly incorporate PTD. However, Section 20 of the 1999 Constitution mandates the state to “protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and land, forest and wildlife of Nigeria.” This Directive Principle, though non-justiciable under Section 6(6)(c), provides moral and interpretative support for PTD. Recent Nigerian jurisprudence, such as in Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2019) LPELR-56230(SC), suggests an evolving judicial willingness to interpret environmental rights in ways that could accommodate the Public Trust Doctrine.

3. South Africa: Explicit Constitutional Link

Section 24 of the South African Constitution explicitly provides for the right to a healthy environment. South African courts, notably in Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v. Director-General, Environmental Management, 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC), has incorporated PTD principles into environmental governance.

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST IN VARIOUS INDIAN STATES

India represents one of the most progressive implementations of the Public Trust Doctrine. The doctrine has been shaped and expanded through significant court rulings, with both the judiciary and the legislature emphasizing the importance of public engagement in environmental decision-making.^[9] Some of the ways the doctrine has been applied in various Indian states include;

Kerala

In Kerala, the Plachimada Panchayat denied permission for groundwater extraction due to environmental concerns in the area. The court upheld this decision by invoking the Public Trust Doctrine, which assigns the responsibility of safeguarding natural resources to the State and its institutions. Failure to fulfill this obligation—especially in preventing the over-extraction of groundwater—was deemed a violation of the constitutional right to life under Article 21. The court further ruled that Coca-Cola had no legitimate entitlement to exploit such vital national resources, declaring the extraction illegal. In alignment with this doctrine, Kerala enacted a 2002 law to protect ecologically sensitive forest areas.^[10]

Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a directive prohibiting the conversion of agricultural land for other purposes—including irrigation or any alternative use—without prior approval from the State or the Board of Revenue. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld this measure as legally valid and confirmed that, under the Public Trust Doctrine, deep underground water is considered state property. While farmers have the right to use water for irrigation and may construct tanks for that purpose, these rights are subject to reasonable state-imposed limitations. Importantly, landowners are prohibited from blocking water flow to adjacent properties or discharging waste in a manner that interferes with neighboring landowners’ water usage.

Tamil Nadu

Applying the Public Trust Doctrine, the Madras High Court halted illegal sand mining and instructed the government to take disciplinary action against officials who authorized the unauthorized extraction and damaged the river ecosystem.

Rajasthan

In Rajasthan, efforts to acquire land constituting part of a village riverbed were contested through a Public Interest Litigation. The Rajasthan High Court ruled that invoking urgency provisions was unwarranted and emphasized the relevance of the Public Trust Doctrine in protecting such communal resources.^[11]

 THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN ADVANCING PTD

Judiciaries have played a transformative role in interpreting constitutional provisions to align with PTD principles, particularly where the constitution is silent or ambiguous.

Expanding the Right to Life

In many jurisdictions, courts have expanded the scope of the constitutional right to life to include environmental rights, thus creating room for PTD. For example, the Indian judiciary’s interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to a wholesome environment has become the cornerstone for applying PTD in several environmental cases.

 Constitutional Remedies and Judicial Activism

Where legislative or executive branches have failed to implement sustainable environmental practices, courts have often stepped in. For example, in Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016), young plaintiffs invoked the Public Trust Doctrine to argue that the U.S. government failed to safeguard natural resources for future generations. While the case was eventually dismissed on procedural grounds, it demonstrated how PTD can serve as a constitutional argument for intergenerational justice.

CASE STUDIES

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath^[12]

Addressing the pollution of the Ganges River, a lifeline for millions, the Public Trust Doctrine was invoked. The Supreme Court of India decreed that the government, acting as trustee, must shield and enhance the environment for the public good. This ruling crystallized the notion that the government is not merely a proprietor but a custodian of natural resources, instilling accountability for environmental conservation.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India^[13]

This case broadened the scope of the Public Trust Doctrine to include air and water quality. The court, decreeing the right to a wholesome environment as intrinsic to the right to life, acknowledged the expansive application of the doctrine. This landmark decision resonated in subsequent cases addressing air and water pollution, imprinting a lasting impact.^[14]

IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE

Protection of Natural Resources

The Public Trust Doctrine serves as a powerful legal and moral framework for safeguarding essential natural resources such as air, water, forests, wetlands, and marine ecosystems. It establishes that these resources are not owned by the government, but rather held by it in trust for the benefit of present and future generations. This principle prevents their exploitation for purely private or commercial gain, ensuring that the environment is preserved for collective use and enjoyment. In doing so, PTD acts as a bulwark against environmental degradation and promotes ecological sustainability.

Government Accountability

A central feature of the Public Trust Doctrine is the imposition of a fiduciary obligation on the state. This means that the government, as trustee, is bound to act in the best interest of the public in the management and protection of trust resources. It cannot abdicate this responsibility or allow actions that would harm these resources without violating its duty. Consequently, when governments fail to uphold these responsibilities, citizens and civil society organizations can hold them accountable through legal mechanisms, thereby reinforcing democratic governance and environmental stewardship.

Environmental Justice

The PTD plays a pivotal role in advancing environmental justice by ensuring that all segments of society—especially marginalized and underrepresented communities—have equal access to and benefit from public resources. Often, environmental harms disproportionately affect poor and indigenous communities, who rely heavily on natural ecosystems for their livelihoods. The doctrine provides a legal foundation for challenging such inequities and demands that the state protect these communities from exploitation and exclusion in environmental matters.

Reinforcement of Constitutional Rights

 In many jurisdictions, the right to a clean and healthy environment is considered an extension of fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to life and dignity. The PTD complements these rights by mandating proactive environmental governance. For instance, in India and Nigeria, courts have linked PTD with the constitutional right to life under Article 21 and Section 33 respectively, thereby compelling the state to prevent pollution and environmental harm that could jeopardize human health and wellbeing. This doctrinal linkage fortifies the legal framework for environmental protection and enhances the enforceability of environmental rights.

Judicial Intervention and Legal Precedent

Courts have increasingly turned to the Public Trust Doctrine when deciding cases related to environmental harm and mismanagement of natural resources. It serves as a legal touchstone for judges seeking to restrain harmful governmental and private conduct. Notable examples include landmark rulings that prevented the construction of polluting industries near ecologically sensitive zones or nullified unauthorized water extraction by corporations. In this sense, PTD has become a potent judicial tool for environmental regulation, influencing both administrative behavior and legislative priorities.

Promotion of Sustainable Development

The PTD promotes the principle of sustainable development by requiring that present-day economic activities do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This entails balancing the demands of development with the imperative of environmental preservation. By mandating state responsibility over vital ecological assets, PTD helps steer policymaking and land use planning toward long-term ecological health, thereby embedding sustainability into the heart of environmental governance.

Check on Privatization and Commercialization

 As states increasingly embrace liberal economic reforms, the privatization of public resources has become more prevalent. The Public Trust Doctrine provides an important safeguard against the commodification and exclusive appropriation of essential natural resources. It ensures that governments do not transfer control of lakes, rivers, forests, and other vital ecosystems to private entities in a manner that undermines public access or environmental integrity. Where such privatization is allowed, PTD insists that it must serve the public interest and not result in ecological harm or social exclusion.

CHALLENGES IN CONSTITUTIONALIZING THE PTD

Doctrinal Ambiguity

The lack of precise constitutional language regarding PTD can result in judicial overreach or inconsistency. In some cases, courts may be reluctant to extend the doctrine’s scope, fearing encroachment into legislative or executive domains.

Conflicts between Centre and State

Natural resources are meant to be shared by everyone. However, problems arise when the central government claims control over resources that have historically been managed under state laws. Resolving this conflict requires a thoughtful and refined approach—one that upholds the integrity of legal principles while also ensuring the effective governance of essential resources.^[15]

Conflict with Private Property Rights

Constitutional protection of private property may conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. For instance, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the state’s ability to regulate private land for environmental reasons without compensating landowners.

Non-Justiciable Provisions

In countries like Nigeria, Directive Principles, (found in chapter two of the Nigerian constitution) are non-justiciable, weakening the enforceability of PTD-related claims. However, courts may use these provisions for interpretive purposes or in conjunction with enforceable rights such as the right to life.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To enhance the constitutional relevance of the Public Trust Doctrine, the following recommendations are proposed:

Explicit Constitutional Recognition

National constitutions should explicitly incorporate PTD, either through amendments or interpretative doctrines These incorporations should be non- ambiguous so as not to be subject to multiple interpretations.

Normative Justification

The normative foundation of the PTD should align with constitutional democracy’s core values; public interest, accountability, and equity. By obligating the state to manage resources in trust, PTD ensures that natural wealth is neither monopolized nor mismanaged.

Strengthening Environmental Rights

Enforceable environmental rights, particularly the right to a healthy environment, should be constitutionally entrenched and guaranteed.

Judicial Training and Activism

The judiciary should not remain impartial courtesans. Judges should be trained in environmental constitutionalism to better understand and apply PTD in environmental adjudication.

Legislative Codification

Legislatures should codify PTD principles in relevant legislations, acts and laws so as to provide clearer guidance for administrative agencies and reduce judicial uncertainty.

Collaborative Agreements and Alliances

Recognizing that environmental challenges transcend borders will go a long way. Numerous countries do and should partake in many-handed agreements and alliances to collectively champion the principles of the Public Trust Doctrine. International collaborations, exemplified by the Paris Agreement on climate change, exemplify countries committing to shared objectives, pooling resources and expertise to tackle global environmental issues. These agreements exemplify the significance of preserving natural resources for the collective benefit of humanity.^[16]

Mutual Obligation

By advocating for shared responsibility, nations can, with the collective effort of individuals, government, and non-governmental organizations, strive for sustainable development, recognizing the intrinsic value of natural resources and the imperative for cooperative solutions.^[17]

CONCLUSION

The Public Trust Doctrine serves as a powerful tool for aligning environmental stewardship with constitutional principles. While its application may differ across legal systems, its fundamental principle remains consistent: certain natural resources are collectively owned by the public, and the state must serve as their trustee rather than their owner. In the face of growing environmental crises and increased public demand for governmental accountability, embedding the PTD within constitutional frameworks could be crucial for promoting environmental justice and achieving sustainable development. In recent times, numerous legal actions have been brought before both state and federal courts, asserting that the PTD obligates governments to take stronger measures against climate change. There is a growing need to raise awareness that the PTD is dynamic and capable of evolving, particularly as courts explore its relevance in the context of climate change.^[18]

REEFERENCES

1. Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471 (1970).

2. Legal Information Institute, Public Trust Doctrine, Cornell L. Sch. [Online]

Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_trust_doctrin

3. All Answers Ltd., Doctrine of Public Trust, LawTeacher.net (June 26, 2025). [Online]

Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/doctrine-of-public-trust.php

4. Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471, 475 (1970).

5. Good Law Project, The Public Trust Doctrine: An Ancient Legal Principle Which Could Protect Our Environment Now and for Future Generations. [Online]

Available at: https://goodlawproject.org/update/the-public-trust-doctrine-an-ancient-legal-principle-which-could-protect-our-environment-now-and-for-future-generations/

6. Ibid.

7.  National Agricultural Law Center, The Public Domain: Basics of the Public Trust Doctrine. [Online]

Available at: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/the-public-domain-basics-of-the-public-trust-doctrine/

8. Reform P., A Conversation about the Public Trust in India: Public Participation, Climate Adaptation, and India’s 2G Network, Center for Progressive Reform (Aug. 29, 2022). [Online] Available at: https://progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/a-conversation-about-the-public-trust-in-india-public-participation-climate-adaptation-and-india-s-2g-network/
9. Ayush Verma, Public Trust Doctrine in India, iPleaders (Aug. 23, 2023). [Online] Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-trust-doctrine-india/ [Accessed 7 July 2025].

10. ELAW: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, India – Perumatty Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala (2003.12.16) (Coca-Cola Groundwater Exploitation Case) (Dec. 11, 2023). [Online] Available at: https://elaw.org/resource/india-perumatty-grama-panchayat-vs-state-of-kerala-2003-12-16-coca-cola-groundwater-exploitation-case

11. All Answers Ltd., Doctrine of Public Trust, LawTeacher.net (June 26, 2025). [Online]

Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/doctrine-of-public-trust.php

12. MANU/SC/0416/2000 (India).

13. MANU/SC/0686/1996 (India).

14.  Manupatra Academy, Public Trust Doctrine. [Online]

Available at: https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/public-trust-doctrine#1

15. James L. Huffman, Why Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine Is Bad for the Public, 45 Envtl. L. 337 (2015); Manupatra Academy, Public Trust Doctrine. [Online]

 Available at: https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/public-trust-doctrine#16

16. Manupatra Academy, Public Trust Doctrine. [Online]

Available at: https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/public-trust-doctrine#16

17.  Nicholas A. Robinson, The Public Trust Doctrine in the 21st Century, 10 Geo. Wash. J. Energy & Envtl. L. 83 (2019).

18. National Agricultural Law Center, The Public Domain: Basics of the Public Trust Doctrine (Apr. 6, 2025). [Online]

Available at: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/the-public-domain-basics-of-the-public-trust-doctrine/

---

^[1] Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Michigan Law Review 471–566 (1970).

^[2] Public Trust Doctrine. LII / Legal Information Institute. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_trust_doctrine#:~:text=Public%20trust%20doctrine%20is%20a,waters%2C%20wildlife%2C%20or%20land.> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[3] Ltd AA, Doctrine of Public Trust. LawTeacher.net, June 26, 2025. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/doctrine-of-public-trust.php> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[4] Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 471, 475 (1970).

^[5] Good Law Project, The Public Trust Doctrine: An Ancient Legal Principle Which Could Protect Our Environment Now and for Future Generations | Good Law Project. Good Law Project, February 20, 2023. <https://goodlawproject.org/update/the-public-trust-doctrine-an-ancient-legal-principle-which-could-protect-our-environment-now-and-for-future-generations/> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] “The Public Domain: Basics of the Public Trust Doctrine – National Agricultural Law Center” <https://nationalaglawcenter.org/the-public-domain-basics-of-the-public-trust-doctrine/>  (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[8] Reform P, “A Conversation about the Public Trust in India: Public Participation, Climate Adaptation, and India’s 2G Network – Center for Progressive Reform” (Center for Progressive Reform, August 29, 2022) <https://progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/a-conversation-about-the-public-trust-in-india-public-participation-climate-adaptation-and-india-s-2g-network/> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[9] Ayush Verma, “Public Trust Doctrine in India – iPleaders” (iPleaders, August 23, 2023) <https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-trust-doctrine-india/>  (last visited July 7, 2025).

^[10] ELAW: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, India – Perumatty Grama Panchayat vs State of Kerala (2003.12.16) (Coca-Cola Groundwater Exploitation Case) – ELAW: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide. ELAW: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, December 11, 2023. <https://elaw.org/resource/india-perumatty-grama-panchayat-vs-state-of-kerala-2003-12-16-coca-cola-groundwater-exploitation-case> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[11] All Answers Ltd, Doctrine of Public Trust. LawTeacher.net, June 26, 2025. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/public-law/doctrine-of-public-trust.php> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[12] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath MANU/SC/0416/2000.

^[13] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India MANU/SC/0686/1996.

^[14] Manupatra Academy <http://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/public-trust-doctrine#1> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[15]  James L. Huffman, Why Liberating the Public Trust Doctrine Is Bad for the Public, 45 Environmental Law 337–77 (2015).

^[16] Manupatra Academy, <http://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/public-trust-doctrine#16> (last visited July 7, 2025)

^[17] Nicholas A. Robinson, The Public Trust Doctrine in the 21st Century, 10 George Washington Journal of Energy and Environmental Law 83 (2019).

^[18] The Public Domain: Basics of the Public Trust Doctrine – National Agricultural Law Center. The National Agricultural Law Center. April 6, 2025. <https://nationalaglawcenter.org/the-public-domain-basics-of-the-public-trust-doctrine/>  (

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.