Does modular home construction require contractor licensing in Utah? State v. Bohne Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals clarified that modular home construction falls squarely within Utah’s Construction Trades Licensing Act requirements in State v. Bohne. This case provides important guidance for contractors and manufacturers working with prefabricated structures.

Background and Facts

Larry Bohne built and sold modular homes without being a licensed contractor. He manufactured complete homes with electrical, plumbing, mechanical systems, and finishing work, then transported them to buyers on trailers. Bohne argued his work was exempt from licensing requirements because he did not perform on-site work like excavation or foundation installation, and his homes were inspected by state-licensed inspectors for building code compliance.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three critical questions: whether modular home construction constitutes a construction trade under the Act, whether Bohne qualified for any licensing exemptions, and whether compliance with the Uniform Building Standards Act excused noncompliance with licensing requirements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying statutory interpretation principles, the court found the Act’s language unambiguous. The definition of “construction trade” includes “any trade or occupation involving construction… of any building.” Since Bohne’s modular homes were complete buildings meant for human occupancy, his activities clearly fell within this definition. The court rejected Bohne’s argument that the sale/merchandising exemption applied, noting that exemptions for construction activities must be strictly construed. Finally, the court held that compliance with building codes serves a different purpose than licensing requirements—one protects against substandard products while the other protects against “inept and financially irresponsible builders.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that modular construction cannot escape licensing requirements simply by avoiding on-site work. Practitioners should note that regulatory compliance in one area does not excuse noncompliance in another, even when both serve public protection goals. Judge Thorne’s concurrence also highlights the importance of developing a complete factual record when asserting statutory exemptions.