Utah Supreme Court
Are modular homes subject to Utah contractor licensing requirements? State v. Bohne Explained
Summary
Larry Bohne constructed and sold modular homes without a contractor’s license, claiming the homes were personal property exempt from licensing requirements. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, holding that modular homes are buildings requiring licensing regardless of their classification as goods under the UCC.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Bohne, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether builders of modular homes must obtain contractor licenses under Utah’s Construction Trade Licensing Act. The case clarifies an important distinction between how the law treats modular homes for commercial transactions versus regulatory compliance.
Background and Facts
Larry Bohne constructed and sold modular homes without a contractor’s license from 1973 onward. He assembled complete homes on his property, then transported them to purchasers’ sites. Bohne argued that because the homes were constructed off-site and were movable at the time of sale, they constituted personal property rather than buildings, exempting him from licensing requirements under Utah Code Section 58-55-301.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether modular homes are “buildings” subject to the Construction Trade Licensing Act or “personal property” exempt from licensing. Bohne relied on the Uniform Commercial Code, which classifies modular homes as “goods” because they are movable at the time of sale.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court applied statutory interpretation principles, examining the Act’s plain meaning and legislative purpose. While acknowledging that modular homes are “goods” under the UCC, the Court declined to apply that definition to licensing requirements. Instead, it focused on the Act’s public safety purpose and held that modular homes fit the common-sense definition of “buildings” – they are complete structures intended for human occupancy. The Court emphasized that the UCC governs contracts, while licensing statutes serve different regulatory purposes.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that regulatory context determines legal definitions, not just commercial law classifications. Practitioners should analyze the specific statutory purpose when advising clients on licensing requirements, rather than assuming definitions from other legal areas apply uniformly.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Bohne
Citation
2002 UT 116
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010116
Date Decided
November 26, 2002
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Modular homes constructed off-site and sold commercially are “buildings” under the Construction Trade Licensing Act and require contractor licensing.
Standard of Review
Correctness for statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When advising clients on licensing requirements, focus on the specific regulatory purpose rather than relying on definitions from other areas of law like the UCC.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.