Indiana

Due to the herculean efforts of the Indiana MHA, Indiana Senate Bill 334 was signed into law this year. Due to its passage, Indiana state law now prevents any deed restriction recorded after June 30, 2007 from prohibiting modular homes. This bill also provides that a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or agreement that applies uniformly to all homes and industrialized residential structures in a subdivision may impose the same aesthetic compatibility requirements on an industrialized residential structure in the subdivision that apply to all residential structures in the subdivision.

For more information contact the Indiana MHA at (317) 247-6258.

Idaho

Senate Bill 1155 was signed into law this year. This bill changes the way the state inspects and regulates modular structures. The bill originally tried to use the term “factory-built structures” to define the industry, which was then pulled at the objection of the Idaho MHA. The bill establishes an advisory board for modular buildings, and consolidates and simplifies the state permitting and inspection process for these structures.

For more information, contact the Idaho MHA at (702) 938-0454.

Minnesota

The Interstate Building Compact is in the process of changing Model Rules and Regulations and the Uniform Administrative Procedures that apply to modular homes. To review the proposed changes and information go to the IBC website, www.interstateibc.org, then click on the scrolling red info in the heading. The State of North Dakota signed an interim reciprocity agreement with the IBC after adopting IBC’s Model Rules and Regulations and Uniform Administrative Procedures. The State of Wisconsin has an agreement with the State of Minnesota that allows industrialized (modular) building manufactured in Minnesota and bearing an IBC certification label to be sited in Wisconsin.

A modular home property tax exemption provision was also included in the Senate omnibus tax bill. This provision would exempt model homes located on a builder/dealer lot from property tax.

For more information, contact the Minnesota MHA at (651) 450-4700.

South Carolina

The South Carolina is expected to implement a new edition of the building code for modular and site-built homes next summer.

The state will finalize an updated version of the International Residential Code (IRC) which is updated every three years. Under SC law, the state can adopt its own state specific amendments to the IRC.

Decisions to amend the IRC are made by the SC Building Codes Council, a state agency board that meets quarterly. One key decision that was made is that the SC Building Codes Council decided not to make sprinkler systems in new homes mandatory.

In other news, the South Carolina Modular Housing Institute opposes any moves by the state to regulate modular homes builders separately from site-builders. Under current law, anyone with a SC Builder’s license can sell and work with modulars. The modular industry in SC would like to see this remain unchanged, and feels the consumer can best be served by leaving the modular industry to be regulated under the Residential Builder and Contractors Licensing Board.

For more information, contact the South Carolina MHI at (803) 551-1311.

Tennessee

In case you missed the news alert earlier in March, the Tennessee Supreme Court found in favor of a homeowner that was prevented in assembling a modular home in his subdivision by his neighbors.

Neighbors in the subdivision used language in the existing restrictive covenant that specifically prohibited “mobile homes” and “trailers” as their basis for seeking a permanent injunction against the modular home. After the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction by acknowledging that modular homes and mobile homes are “different without distinction,” the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, holding that “modular homes are distinct types of structures from mobile homes and trailers . . . and the courts cannot expand the plain wording of the covenant to include the defendant’s modular home.”

This is a significant decision that will assist tremendously in the modular industry’s ability to debate and resist improper applications of covenants and deed restrictions.

The Tennessee MHA deserves much credit for their work in this case and writing an amicus brief in support of the defendant.