Earlier this week I published an article about a recent case in California regarding manufactured homes, where the court was called upon to decide if a manufactured home sitting on a property's foundation was "attached'" and part of the realty, or simply an unattached fixture.  The answer seems obvious and the court ultimately ruled that the home was an attached part of the real estate. Nevertheless, the fact that the case was so controversial and went so far (and is likely to go further to the Supreme Court) should be an indication that the question of what is and what is not an "attachment" can be sticky.