> dippy idiot.
>
>
I always liked that one... sadly I don't remember ever ever having the honor of being tagged with it.
:good:
> 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).
There were others on this board who agreed with Richard although they expressed themselves differently. I also remember a series of posts by a well known professional presenter from Florida who basically said the same thing IMHO.
The only gripe I had was Richard's lack of clarity on how he was going to "correct" the record. Documentation is everything along with protecting your rear. IMHO, in 9 out of 10 cases, correcting the record would or should end with a Quiet Title Action which would never fly for the general public because of the expense.
RIP Richard. Thanks for sharing; I would never have researched "allodial" without you. I may have learned more due to Richard's comments, and the threads they started or kept going, than any other single source. Not sure I ever reached the familiar status of "dippy idiot", but still feel I knew him a little bit from board banter.
He was one of the few who comprehended that there are age-old indeterminisms between common law and civil law, and he tried to keep that awareness alive among surveyors.
RIP Richard.
Sad news, indeed. I feel like I lost a good adversary. Everyone needs a good adversary. They'll challenge you to think and will sharpen your debating skills. After a good, long, drawn-out debate with Richard, I always felt that I was, somehow, better for it.
As it is said in Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. (NIV)
I'll never forget Richard's lessons on allodial title and alienation. They did cause me to research a new topic which increased my understanding of land tenure. Although, I never was convinced that "changing the description" was a proper form of resolution.
Rest in peace, my good friend.
JBS
RIP Richard. Say hi to Mr. G for me. (unless Fence Heaven and Coordinate heaven are two different places)
>
> The only gripe I had was Richard's lack of clarity on how he was going to "correct" the record. Documentation is everything along with protecting your rear. IMHO, in 9 out of 10 cases, correcting the record would or should end with a Quiet Title Action which would never fly for the general public because of the expense.
Very true.
Simply "correcting the record" by filing an amended description or filing a survey actually does nothing.
To follow that important first step with a Boundary Line Agreement, Lot Line Adjustment, or Quiet Title Action will clear the title (the goal is clear title that coincides with occupation)... but only if all interested parties consent to the configuration (or a Judge of Competent Jurisdiction consents for them).
"you wouldn't understand, it is a Title Thing" 😉
Peter, self appointed Dippy Idiot
Rest Well Mr. Schaut
That is as it should be.
A boundary survey simply retraces the existing boundary. There is no Title to clear up. If you have two Deeds next to each other and each has clear Title to wherever their property is located then the Surveyor needs to locate the boundary between them, wherever it may be located. This is the insight I got from Richard but it took a pounding a few times to get it. Fortunately I have a fairly thick skin. Sometimes my boss says something to me and I say, "Marc you can say that to me, I'm thick skinned, but please be careful with your other employees [mostly non-surveyors]" then we laugh about it.
I think, and this is somewhat of a guess, Richard was trying to find a way to get boundary information into the record outside of a filed Survey and maybe also to get it into the chain of title (Records of Survey don't go into the chain of title, therefore no constructive notice). He wasn't changing the boundary; he was just reporting better information about where it is located.
This seems to be a big source of confusion. I was confused about it for a long time.
> RIP Richard. Say hi to Mr. G for me. (unless Fence Heaven and Coordinate heaven are two different places)
:good:
rip :angel: R.L.S. :angel:
> I think, and this is somewhat of a guess, Richard was trying to find a way to get boundary information into the record outside of a filed Survey and maybe also to get it into the chain of title (Records of Survey don't go into the chain of title, therefore no constructive notice). He wasn't changing the boundary; he was just reporting better information about where it is located.
Actually, that example of Richard's work that was available on the internet explained Richard's ideas about surveying better than he was ever able to. He was working in an environment in which $700 was the maximum fee he expected he'd be able to collect for subdividing a section and needed to justify as many short cuts as he could. That example was a section in a rural township where he had spent a little time searching for BT evidence at one corner (along a fenceline, naturally) and then had given up and just invented the rest using roads and utility poles of recent origin. Actual retracement work apparently became "milking the job" to him after years of substandard work like that.
My condolences to the Schaut family for their loss.
McMillan, you deed staking pile of excrement! 😉
Gardner was honored with that title but I think we can transfer it to the living now.
Dave
It's McMillimeter.
:good:
Dave
And I think it's "Deed staking pile of garbage."
My condolences to the family.
A poor turn of phrase for the obituary page, though...
The Guest Book for Richard Schaut is expired.
His posts were always interesting. RIP
> McMillan, you deed staking pile of excrement! 😉
(Actually, what Richard was most bothered by about Texas land surveying was the idea that not every fence was a boundary fence. Apparently, they all were in Green Bay. :>)
And furthermore, Karoly, the office of the legal description is merely to identify the property owners who will be able to point out the fences on their boundaries. Anything more is nullifying their rights as owners of allodial lands under the Wisconsin Constitution!
