Summary
The Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether a subdivision restrictive covenant prohibiting mobile homes and trailers also prohibited modular homes. The court held that modular homes are legally and structurally distinct from mobile homes and trailers and that the covenant could not be expanded to prohibit modular homes absent express language. The court reversed the permanent injunction requiring removal of the modular home.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the subdivision's restrictive covenant prohibiting mobile homes and trailers also prohibits a modular home that is not built on a permanent chassis and is not readily removable after installation.
- Whether the courts may expand the plain language of the restrictive covenant to prohibit a structure not expressly identified in the covenant.
Holdings
- A modular home is distinct from a mobile home or trailer under the covenant and is not prohibited when the covenant does not expressly mention modular homes.
Key quotations
“In sum, we hold that "modular homes" are distinct types of structures from "mobile homes" and "trailers," and because the restrictive covenant did not expressly prohibit "modular homes," the plain wording of the covenant cannot be expanded to prohibit the defendant's modular home.” (326)
“Unlike a mobile home or house trailer, a modular home is not built on a permanent chassis, and for that reason, it is not able to be readily moved to another location once installed or erected.” (323)
“Once delivered and erected on the property, they become part of the property as a permanent improvement to the real estate similar to a "site-built" home.” (323)
Factual background
The plaintiffs and defendant owned lots in the Oma Lee Williams subdivision, whose recorded covenants prohibited temporary buildings, mobile homes, and trailers but did not expressly mention modular homes. Fox delivered a modular home to his lot in two sections and began assembling it. The structure was built off-site to state building-code standards, was not constructed on a permanent chassis, was not titled as a vehicle, and was designed to become a permanent improvement to the real estate.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs obtained a temporary restraining order preventing Fox from continuing construction of a modular home on his subdivision lot. After a bench trial, the trial court converted the relief into a permanent and mandatory injunction requiring removal of the home, concluding that the covenant's prohibitions on mobile homes and trailers also prohibited modular homes. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed.