According to Jonathan Douglas v. Five Star Properties, Inc. the CrossMod home is not a mobile home because it is designed to be a permanent structure once placed. It is affixed to a permanent, load-bearing foundation, and experts testify that it is not easily movable once constructed. These factors distinguish the CrossVue home from traditional mobile homes, which are intentionally designed to be transportable.

In Jonathan Douglas v. Five Star Properties, Inc. the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville discussed the enforcement of restrictive covenants, specifically regarding the development of mobile homes.

The central issue in this case was the ambiguity of the term "mobile home," as neither the plat nor deed restrictions defined it. The key question upon appeal was whether the initial trial court erred in its interpretation of the restrictive covenant.

Originally, the trial court ruled that Five Star Properties’ development of the CrossMod home violated the covenant, mainly focusing on the home’s construction process and its off-site manufacturing (over 70% of the CrossMod is built off-site). The court was initially concerned with the appearance of the CrossMod and its close resemblance to a mobile home.

However, the appellate court took a different approach, focusing on the permanence of the structure. Five Star Properties argued that the trial court had wrongly applied previous cases, (particularly Neas and Napier), and instead should have followed the precedent set in McKeehan v. Price (2022) and Williams v. Williams (Tennessee Supreme Court). These cases reject the idea that homes built off-site should automatically be classified as mobile homes. In McKeehan, the court explained that a "mobile home" refers to a structure designed for transient occupancy or ready transportability, not one intended to be permanent.

They determined that, although the CrossMod home is mainly manufactured off-site, it is designed to be a permanent structure once placed on a foundation. It is affixed to a permanent, load-bearing foundation, and experts testified that it is not easily movable once constructed, distinguishing it from a traditional mobile home, which is typically designed to be easily transportable.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the CrossMod home should not be considered a "mobile home" as defined by the restrictive covenant.