(logo) Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund Inc.

Casenotes

Indiana

Mobile Homes; Warranty of Habitability

Dinsmore v Fleetwood Homes of Tennessee, Inc, 906 NE2d 186 (Ind Ct App, 2009).

Facts:Sandra Dinsmore (Sandra or the Dinsmores collectively with other plaintiffs) purchased a mobile home from Fleetwood Homes of Tennessee (Fleetwood) in April 1999. Sandra and her husband resided in the home from 1999 to July 2002. Sandra gave birth to a daughter in January 2000, and this daughter, Carissa Dinsmore, resided with Sandra and her husband at the home for several months. Sandra, her husband, and her daughter left the home in March 2000. Sandra's son, Brian Dinsmore (Brian) moved into the home with his fiancée and son, where they lived for two to three years. Brian paid Sandra's mortgage payment as a rental payment.

In June 1999, Sandra made complaints to the manufacturer that, among other defects, there was mold growing on the windowsill and that a bathroom vent was leaking water. A repairman was sent to correct the problems. Sandra complained in August 1999 that the bathroom vent was leaking anew and two more repairmen were dispatched to remedy the issue. No more complaints were made until Sandra complained in July 2002 that the mold was growing throughout the house.

Counsel for the Dinsmores subsequently notified Fleetwood of the home's defects in writing and filed suit. At some later date, Brian's son Bradley Tucker joined the lawsuit as an intervening plaintiff. Fleetwood subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on both procedural grounds and on the grounds that the common-law warranty of habitability did not apply.

Holding:Reversed. The court of appeals ruled that the common-law warranty of habitability could apply to mobile homes and further found that there were remaining issues of material fact as to whether Sandra had rented the property to Brian, as to what the defects were, and as to whether warranty was waived. The court determined that, given that a claim of breach of the common law warranty could be sustained on a mobile home, these questions were to be left to a finder of fact and, as such, reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fleetwood argued to the court that the warranty of habitability could not apply to pre-manufactured mobile homes. The court, however, accepted the argument brought by the Dinsmores that the Indiana Supreme Court had noted in the past that the warranty of habitability applied to "manufacturers" of homes, rather than builders. The court concluded that this was done in order to include all types of homes, whether site-built or manufactured. Furthermore, the court reasoned that Fleetwood's argument failed because Fleetwood's own owner's manual refers to their product as "homes" and "residences." As a result, the court found that the common law warranty of habitability could apply to a Fleetwood mobile home. The court further concluded that the facts did not indicate that Fleetwood had properly disclaimed implied warranties and therefore found that the summary judgment should be reversed.

© ATG|Casenotes/Bulletin 1003_v3n3

[Last update: 4-23-10]