significant clear error are first both courts neither side excuse me neither court addressed the case in re green which was cited to both courts in all of the briefing both courts held that that the most manufactured home at issue was not real property under missouri law that was similar to iowa law at the time that coleman the eighth circuit case cited was decided the missouri case or the missouri statute cited by both the bankruptcy court and the bankruptcy appellate panel w different jurisdiction yeah i know a lot different in illinois than ira know the law cited in a green illinois common law is nearly identical to iowa common law regarding fixtures and the facts in re green are nearly identical to the facts in this case you want to understand the prefabricated house sits real estate under a lease for nine or mrs bennett and initial i don't remember what the initial ninety nine year lease that renew is for successive periods of ninety nine years unless debtors mr or mrs bennett canceled that lease now it's kind of like buying the property buying the real estate that is correct that is that has been the paddocks argument all along that mr or mrs bennett have effectively perhaps not a fee simple beginning of your question you understand that if the lease is the same is owning the real estate because of the slings and the house that's on that then we wouldn't have this dispute clearly the piece of property would be real estate well that's a good question your honor i the analysis would be the same to determine whether the house is a fixture given that it begins as personal property under iowa law and so i think what we would be looking at though is a different a different interest of mr or mrs bagnet in determining whether the home is f x true because if they outright owned the land there'd be no question that if they had if they had hard somebody to build a stick built house on a piece of real estate that they opened the real estate in the house would be considered a piece of real estate yes that is correct your honor well actually isn't the issue here is exactly the same no matter how we look at it the question is one of intent to permanently fix the personalty to the real estate such that it becomes part of the real estate yes that is that's i mean that would be the same whether whether you took this this pre manufactured home when you put it on a piece of property that you own or a piece of property that you've least it doesn't really matter while the ninety nine year lease renewables will apparently eternity  interesting nine hundred ninety years i guess well that's all interesting it doesn't really matter because the question really is about what happens to this piece of personal property when it's when it's attached to the land and that's all about intent and until it's built into of residence on a piece of property that you own yes that is correct and in this case the ground least is clear that the manufactured home once attached to the underlying realty became a permanent accession and fixture the bankruptcy court concluded otherwise on the basis that the and this is found at page fifty nine in the joint appendix on the basis that the peers were subject to sink edge and then on page sixty that the structure underneath the home to which you can attach the wheel axles had not been removed neither of those facts to the extent that they have any bearing on this defeat the paddocks intent to make the home a permanent accession to the underlying reality this is a this  fact that's a good question judgment well that's what justice kagan i think is trying to say you all cite i think the the bab cites to us bank national association case and i bet your are you familiar with the long debate  quick quickly it going yes and and all indications here it's important to point out that the intent that matters is the intent of the party fixing the structure to the land not somebody else's intent what in the it would they have to have to make the structure a permanent exhibit rosen's well in this case it would be that the paddock would have to intend that the manufactured home be a permanent accession to the underlying reality and that does tie back to federal law which is cited in the ground lease the very long national manufactured home standard sub safety in construction and that that's not exactly correct but that law requires certain certain aspects of attachment for a manufactured home to become you know to comply with federal law and it requires a permanent you know the permanent chassis which is the fiqh the underlying structure which was not removed it requires certain types of the fixation to the land so it complies with federal law no part of the dispute here is that how it's a fixed that it is and if  if they went in and done a foundation poured a concrete foundation and centered on that this wouldn't be a dispute at all but since it has on concrete pillars and so forth it's the it does there's no requirement that there be a permanent foundation and the paddock did show that the piers which the bankruptcy court found appeared to be sinking are required by federal law to be embedded below the to sixty inches so they had been embedded yes and so there is a there is there's no allegation at all that the paddock has not complied with federal law in  curing the home to the peers so that finding by the bankruptcy court is is clearly erroneous because those peers are required to be embedded sixty inches into the ground thank you for your argument you're welcome we request that the court of reverse the bankruptcy appellate panel the bankruptcy court and i have used my time for you bottle self thank you your honor we will give you one minute so you so you know what to do as you said ok we'll round to the one minute since it's a ten minute case judge erickson pointed out and focus the entire discussion the primary consideration here is the intent of the party affixing the object under discussion and here are manufactured home and we discern i did intend to to the to the real estate whether it's intended to be a permanent fixture or not the one thing that hasn't been discussed so far is how is the property treated in the transactional documents between the parties in the transactional documents which i think are very revealing regarding the intent of the paddock clearly treat the property as personal property throughout this matter fact the documents take a special care to maintain the separation between the owner of the manufactured home and the owner of the underlying real estate they may make a special effort to ensure that everybody knows that the personal property taxes on the mobile home manufactured home are to be paid by the residence the purchasers the bennett's and that the underlying real estate taxes will be paid by the landowner the paddock in this case which is also secured party from the money from the nine hundred ninety nine year lease right oh they would say that that is the only thing required to be paid your honor under the lease and ongoing basis is what they call a  community fee which is apparently for the maintenance of the common areas so they're going to use this piece of property to put this manufactured home on this piece of real estate for nine hundred ninety nine years for nothing that when i'm understanding it is well that be in the in the in the in the hearings there was a that they had made a charge which was a part of the purchase price for the lease fee the lease refers to a fee but there's no place anywhere that specifies how much it is and whether it's to be paid and how it's to be paid the the fee that's paid on a monthly basis started out at one hundred thirty five dollars and hundred fifty dollars per month per month is the land is that is the homeowner's association fee that everybody pays now of course the real finding of the district the bankruptcy court on  this is we can't tell on the fees right in that the fair reading of page eight we really can't tell on the fees what's really going on that's true yeah leave that and says it very plainly and also i mean who cares what they use the fees where once they're paid they're going to use them hopefully for an appropriate play purpose it does reflect on the second prong whether the home is put to the same uses the realty you get you get that going and the bankruptcy court clearly held that  separate uses one use by the by the intended use of the home itself is as a residence for a family in the intended use for the underlying real estate as as a as a lot to be re out for that is the main finding but you know they take it away they pull the rug out in the next sentence they don't have to really resolve it whether the same use or not well i think it's still there and i know what they say four lines about that but the court a final point is court need not resolve this issue and there is a direct response to judge beames question regarding the ninety nine nine hundred eighty year lease three times ninety nine  normally when you see those kinds of lisas and somebody goes into a wrecked the building a manufacturing building normally or an office building at the end of the lease the ownership of the building reverts to the whole to the landowner the people walk out and leave the building behind in this case if they walk out and leave the building but in this case that's not the fact well if you if they terminate lease the building space in this case these documents to not provide that imette is matter of fact the clear intent of these documents is that the residents if they terminate the lease under the terms of the lease to help they be that they pick a home and leave with that they must abandon the site they do not say abandon the home and the site and that's a that's a different thing than likely if you leased land from the railroad for ninety nine years and it's sitting in downtown and you build a hotel on it at the end of the ninety ninety year the railroad owns your hotel and it's in you walk away from it and that's the way it is now this particular contract specifically says at the end of the lease you take if you leave you take take the house right you take that's right and that's that's evidence that it's there remains personal personal property right because if it's realty you think you would only damage the underlying land by removing it and the theory is here is that you're required to take an elite and your i don't there's nothing in the record that suggests as was in the ford vs vainer case that there would be any significant damage done to the to the house if you if you took it apart and put it on whatever can type of conveyance brought it in the hall off and put on a new location there's no suggestion that it would be like trying to move a your house or my house assuming we have a house in town we're talking about tearing the house apart taking it off then i don't know i'm not following your honor it was never really attached to the foundation as a matter of fact the foundation according to the testimony of the only testimony of somebody who had direct knowledge the conversation would occasionally fall away from the house and it would have to be as resupport and with more yeah the testimony basically was is that business would go back in there and lift it up shored up do what needs to be done to maintain the stability structure right that's what i recall the testimony being what you are which is the same as would happen with a stick built house if the foundation started t fall away hire somebody to reap pair of the foundation and go right on living in the house for nine hundred ninety nine years but in this case again nor the difference between that is that you have a foundation that is originally put below the frost lie and that there's been some outside pressure or change to affect the quality of the foundation after a number of years not these pillars had to be sixty inches down by under federal law where there's no indication that they were ok let's go slowly because she the bankruptcy judge says the that nobody shows their deeply embedded the patty did not show they were deeply invested the only evidence is of course your tell your clients testimony it was found credible that one was sinking and they weren't deeply invested now of what what evidence was put before the bankruptcy court is the federal law or whether this combined with the federal law  the facts and also it's clear that the the paddock intended this property be treated as personal property in the in the documentation is that the homeowner the resident could refinance the property and in that event or in the event of a d on the secured claim regarding the sale of the home the lender could come in and take over possession of the home and terminate the lease wished with with the property there's no indication that they have to leave it behind the only requirement of the resident that set out anywhere in the lease is that if they terminate the lease they have to leave the product the real estate the underlying the lot in good condition thank you for your argument we would request of the decision of the bankruptcy court be your for your thank so just to point out that the references to personal property and the transaction of documents are solely to protect the debtors and any lien holders that might have liens on the property they not there to override the clear statements that the home is a permanent accession to the underlying reality and one piece of evidence that neither the bankruptcy court nor the bankruptcy appellate panel addressed are the photos of the debtors residence and similar residences at page pages forty four through forty nine in the joint appendix where they introduced and before the whether they cross the court yes they were ok and they  in any of the opinions but the show that it is not a simple matter of just quote jacking up the home attaching it to a truck and dragging it off the property so thank you your honor sir this is a question go ahead  two are pictures of mr or mrs bennett's home the next four are pictures of similar homes and in the same community and that would be evidence that the bankruptcy court should consider yes y to that they were referred to during testimony where they referred to during testimony by both of your property manager and by mr bennett i don't recall off the top of my had whether mr bennett testified about the photographs so i don't know but the property manager certainly did yes yes i introduced them so that she would testify about them and when they were taken and if one other trivial detail who went f