99-2466 Ahrens et al. v. Town of Fulton

Listen to this article

The legislative history supports the conclusion that a mobile home has taken on the character of real property when it is hooked up to utilities and is set upon a foundation on land which is owned by the mobile home owner.

“Thus, from this report, it is clear that the legislature adopted specific criteria – hooked up to utilities and set upon a foundation on land owned by the mobile home owner – to identify mobile homes that were sufficiently permanent in nature so as to be regarded as improvements to real property. Thus, in interpreting the requirement that a mobile home must be ‘off its wheels and set upon some other support,’ our objective must be to incorporate those mobile homes that are ‘sufficiently permanent in nature.’ Mobile homes that do not show any signs of permanency and are mobile should fall outside the definition and be regarded as personal property.”

The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

CONCURRING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., with whom Sykes, J., joins. “I agree with the majority opinion that Wis. Stat. § 70.043 needs legislative attention. No judicial definition of ‘set upon a foundation’ or ‘off its wheels’ or ‘set upon some other support’ is free from difficulties. Nevertheless, in choosing among several unsatisfactory alternatives set forth by the courts, I would adopt the test set forth in the majority opinion in the court of appeals because I think it presents the fewest problems in application. I would not further complicate the issue, as the majority opinion does, by adding the concepts of ‘temporary'(majority op. at ¶30), ‘temporary and for a limited time’ (majority op. at ¶30), ‘very limited time’ (majority op. at ¶30), or ‘temporary basis’ (majority op. at ¶31) in interpreting the statute.”

Court of Appeals, Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Dianne M. Soffa, Russell W. Devitt, Whitewater

For Respondent: Robert Horowitz, Meg Vergeront, Madison