ILNews

COA: Manufactured home subject to law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that manufactured mobile homes are subject to Indiana's common law warranty of habitability, so it reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer in a homeowner's property damage and personal injury complaint.

In Sandra Dinsmore, et al. v. Fleetwood Homes of Tennessee, Inc., No. 49A02-0807-CV-615, Sandra filed a complaint against Fleetwood Homes that the home she purchased in 1999 wasn't a safe place to live because it had latent defects that caused toxic mold throughout the home, leaving it uninhabitable. After Dinsmore moved into the home, the bathroom vent leaked water and caused mold to grow. The company who sold her the home attempted to repair the problem twice. Less than a year later, Sandra and her family moved out and Sandra's son, fiancee, and baby moved into the mobile home and paid rent. There were no more complaints about the home until July 2002 when she called Fleetwood to report mold growing throughout the home; Brian and his family moved out.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fleetwood and denied Dinsmore and her family's motion to amend by interlineation Sandra's response to Fleetwood's motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals granted Fleetwood's motion to strike evidentiary assertions in the appellants' brief that depend on evidence that wasn't specifically designated to the trial court.

The only issue on appeal is the application of the common law implied warranty of habitability, which Fleetwood suggested isn't applicable to manufactured mobile homes. And even if it were applicable, Fleetwood's warranty is only applicable during the time frame the initial homebuyer occupies the unit as a resident, the company argued.

Citing Barnes v. MacBrown & Co., Inc., 264 Ind. 277, 342 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. 1976), the Court of Appeals noted the use by the Indiana Supreme Court of the term "manufacturer" supports the reasonable inference there is no distinction between a site-built home and a manufactured home, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

Fleetwood could have disclaimed the implied warranty of habitability to someone who lives in the home yet didn't initially purchase it; however, it had to follow the steps in Indiana Code Section 32-27-2-9. Fleetwood didn't argue or show it properly disclaimed "all implied warranties" as provided by the statute.

"The undisputed facts do not establish that Fleetwood is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' claims under Indiana's common law warranty of habitability, and Fleetwood's express warranties do not supersede Indiana's implied warranty of habitability because Fleetwood did not follow the builder's statutory disclaimer procedure," wrote Judge Darden.

In addition, numerous issues of material fact remain, so the trial court erred in granting Fleetwood summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals also found the issue of the intervening plaintiffs' response to the summary judgment is moot because summary judgment to Fleetwood is precluded.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT