McKeehan v. Price
| Citation | 646 S.W.3d 486 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | E2021-00453-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | Cathy MCKEEHAN v. Katie PRICE |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Tennessee |
Donald Capparella and Patrick Riley, Nashville, Tennessee; and Kimberlee A. Waterhouse and Taylor E. Jenkins-Dowd, Lenoir City, Tennessee, for the appellant, Cathy McKeehan.
Brian T. Mansfield, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Katie Price.
D. Michael Swiney, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John W. McClarty and Kristi M. Davis, JJ., joined.
This appeal concerns an issue of whether a modular home violates a subdivision's restrictive covenants. Katie Price ("Price") wanted to place a modular home on her property in Fort Loudon Estates subdivision. Cathy McKeehan ("McKeehan"), a long-time resident of Fort Loudon Estates, sued Price in the Chancery Court for Loudon County ("the Trial Court"). McKeehan alleged that Price's modular home violated a subdivision restriction against temporary structures. After a bench trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Price. McKeehan appeals. The evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's finding that Price's home is not a temporary structure. We hold, as did the Trial Court, that Price's modular home is not prohibited by the subdivision's restrictions. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
In May 2020, Price bought Lot 25 in Fort Loudon Estates in Loudon County. She soon thereafter obtained a permit to place a "double-wide" mobile home on her lot. In July 2020, McKeehan, a long-time resident of Fort Loudon Estates, filed her Petition for Enforcement of Covenants and Restrictions and for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction against Price in the Trial Court. Fort Loudon Estates’ covenants and restrictions were recorded in 1959. In her petition, McKeehan relied on Item Four of the covenants and restrictions for Fort Loudon Estates, which provides:
Acting on McKeehan's petition, the Trial Court entered a temporary restraining order against Price, enjoining her "from placing a mobile home, trailer, or other temporary structure on Lot 25 located in Fort Loudon Estates #1 pending further hearing of this cause." Price then filed an answer, stating in part: "The Defendant requests this petition ... be dismissed as evidence has been provided to the Court, and the Plaintiff's attorney, that a doublewide, nor any type of mobile home, will not be being placed on said property by the Defendant nor any other person acting on the Defendant's behalf." In October 2020, Price filed a motion objecting to injunctive relief and seeking to dissolve the restraining order. In her motion, Price stated that she had originally bought a double-wide mobile home but had since cancelled that purchase. Price opted for a modular home instead, which was "constructed, approved and regulated under the Tennessee Modular Building Act of 1985 , TCA § 68-126-301, et seq." Price asserted that her new modular home was distinct from a mobile home and passed muster under the restrictive covenants. The Trial Court subsequently entered an order finding that the temporary injunction should issue and remain in force through a final hearing on McKeehan's petition. McKeehan was to post an injunction bond of $5,000.
In January 2021, a trial on the merits was held before the Trial Court. James Anthony (Tony) Buhl ("Buhl"), a salesperson for Oakwood Homes—a branch under Clayton Homes—testified first. Buhl sold Price a double-wide mobile home, but Price received a full refund on it when she opted for a modular home instead. Price had not yet paid for the modular home. If Buhl completed the sale, he would earn a commission of around 20% of the profit. Appalachia Homes, another subset of Clayton Homes, manufactured the home. The home would be delivered first to Buhl at his facility. The home then would be transported to Price's lot in two pieces using a tractor and an escort. Asked if a chassis were involved, Buhl stated it was a "wood frame." The two separate pieces of the home would be assembled on-site. Buhl testified that if Price had kept the double-wide mobile home, it too would have been transported in two sections. Asked if the frame would be removed from the modular home, Buhl stated: Price's home was an "on-frame mod." Buhl stated that the modular home's dimensions were different from those of the double-wide mobile home: Buhl testified there were mobile homes with the same exterior façade as the modular home. Price's home had already been built; such homes are built to order. Asked if Price's home could be moved once it was placed on her lot, Buhl testified:
On cross-examination, Buhl testified that the home Price was going to purchase from him was a modular home, not a mobile home. Buhl was shown documents to the effect that this was a "regulated and constructed modular home." Buhl stated that a modular home does not have a title. A modular home also is designed to be permanently affixed to a foundation. Buhl testified that a modular home was not designed to be easily transportable to different sites like a single-wide trailer or a mobile home. Buhl stated:
Buhl stated that modular homes are regulated and dealt with separately from mobile homes in terms of construction, design, and qualifications with authorities. The modular home has a serial number, as well. On redirect-examination, Buhl testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial