RIP Mr. Schaut!
Ralph
He certainly got some people to thinking and/or rethinking, and that's a good thing for everybody. Don't know if he changed any minds, but we are all better surveyors for at least thinking (rethinking) a few things he may have brought up.
R.I.P Richard
He was typical of us all, really, don't you think?
What the heck is up with those guest book vultures?
R.I.P.
Don
That is sad news,
requiem in pace amicus
Radar
Richard's Last Post
[msg=105976]Richard Schaut's Last Post[/msg]
I had noticed that some time has passed since he has called anyone out as a dippity idiot.
Today I raise this one in memory of Schaut...RIP
It is an excellent Last Post
"Surveying is a legal profession and the surveyor functions in an area of law that is inaccessable to lawyers.
Remember, boundary locations are fixed by physical evidence, not words on a piece of paper; the words only tell the surveyor where to look.
Surveyors practice boundary law.
Richard Schaut"
"Hey Pete, if the description of heaven is inaccurate then we need to record an affidavit with a new corrected description!"
He was one of the folks that made the old POB board what it was. Never dull.
> He was one of the folks that made the old POB board what it was. Never dull.
:good: He was the epitome of a Surveyor, opinionated and eccentric.
Ralph
rest in peace richard.
he was interesting to me also. He gave me some direct and terse advice a few times on posts. I appreciated his replies.
It always appeared that he believed in a very thorough examinination of the record documents which so many surveyors fail to practice.
At this point, I think that Richard has one of the longest obituaries on this board.
That is an item in itself, and it says a lot about Richard. That he called some people dippy idiots probably called out the worst words in his vocabulary. Based on some of his views, he was the victim of more stalking and personal attacks from some here than almost anyone else.
I rarely agreed with him but always agreed with his right to say what he felt about surveying.
He will be missed here. St. Peter will have his hands full trying to keep up with Richard and his opinions on boundaries.
Larry, you dippy idiot. Pay attention. There is always someone here to nag at you when appropriate. And, even when not so appropriate.
I wonder if there is a fence between heaven and hell.
There's a fence, but, according to Richard it does not match the record description as to location.
"Draw the shade,
Muffle the bell,
Keep quiet the house.
For at no other time does solemnity so possess our souls as when one of our own has crossed the gossamer divide."
Richard Schaut was one fine survey board poster!
Stephen
Richard had some unusual opinions.
I think the general idea that boundaries are where they are in the field although they don't exactly match the record is a good one. If the Surveyor doesn't locate the physical location of the boundary then who will? Certainly not a Judge or Attorney.
One time we were discussing the Bryant case which involved a 10 acre (plus some change) Lot in southern Sacramento County. The lot had been split by first a Deed for the west half then a Deed for the east half; this happened early in the 20th century. There was a fence that was a little too far west in a perfect world. In the 1980s a Surveyor came along and exactly split the lot. A lawsuit ensued which ended in the California Supreme Court. Richard responded to one of my posts with something like (I paraphrase), "don't you think the property owners established there boundaries 70 years before the Surveyor ever showed up?" That was kind of a watershed moment for me. It changed my attitudes about staking old deed boundaries contrary to their long established locations.
Richard seemed to be fixated on the need to record revised descriptions which baffles us out west because we have recorded surveys. Typically the Description stays the same but future Surveyors can get recorded maps from the County Recorder which will provide information about where the boundaries might really be located.
Another point of contention has to do with aliquot corners. Richard seemed to think that if the pre-existing aliquot corner monuments did not exactly match the procedure called for in Chapter 3 then the owners had already abandoned the aliquot part designators and a new metes and bounds description should be written. I don't believe that is necessary. If the aliquot corners are already monumented then they are original monuments that don't have to exactly match the breakdown locations and the aliquot descriptions are fine.
The good thing about Richard Schaut was that he represented a different way of thinking about existing boundaries that did not involve treating Deed descriptions like a cookbook recipe to be followed exactly to the letter. He was right that the Deed descriptions are guides to help find where the boundaries are already located (unless they have never been laid out before).
> The good thing about Richard Schaut was that he represented a different way of thinking about existing boundaries that did not involve treating Deed descriptions like a cookbook recipe to be followed exactly to the letter.
Karoly, you dippy idiot! All land titles in the United States are adverse! By having any opinion about existing boundaries, you are nullifying the landowners's rights to exercise full control over stuff!
damn Kent! On some level I knew you wrote for him, well done.
:good:
Richard was myopic and tenacious... but I believe he meant well. Much of what he wrote did need to be heard, and repeated.