Does Utah's Construction Trades Licensing Act apply to modular home builders? State v. Bohne Explained

In State v. Bohne, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified that constructing modular homes constitutes a construction trade requiring licensure under Utah’s Construction Trades Licensing Act, regardless of where the construction occurs or compliance with building codes.

Background and Facts
Bohne built and sold modular homes without a contractor’s license. He manufactured the homes off-site at his facility and transported them as complete units to installation sites via trailer. Bohne performed no site work such as excavation or foundation installation, leaving such tasks to buyers. The homes were inspected by state-licensed inspectors for building code compliance. The State charged Bohne with contracting without a license, and after a bench trial, he was convicted and sentenced to six months incarceration and a $1,000 fine, with execution stayed pending probation.

Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three primary questions: whether the Construction Trades Licensing Act applied to off-site modular home construction, 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 correctness review to the statutory interpretation issues, the court found the Act’s definition of “construction trade” unambiguous. The statute defines construction trade as “any trade or occupation involving construction…of any building,” and the court concluded modular homes are clearly buildings meant for human occupancy. The court rejected Bohne’s argument that he qualified for the exemption covering “sale or merchandising of personal property,” noting he both constructed and sold the homes. Finally, the court held that compliance with building codes does not excuse licensing violations, as the two regulatory schemes serve complementary but distinct purposes—one protecting against “inept and financially irresponsible builders” and the other ensuring “decent housing.”

Practice Implications
This decision establishes that location of construction does not determine licensing requirements under Utah law. Practitioners should carefully analyze the scope of construction trade definitions and recognize that compliance with one regulatory scheme does not excuse violations of another. The concurring opinion’s analysis of the personal property exemption also highlights the importance of developing a complete factual record when claiming statutory exemptions.