Walters v. Colford, 297 Neb. 302

Background

The Adamy subdivision (platted in 1976) contains 14 lots and recorded restrictive covenants (plat/declaration) limiting structures; those documents were on file when plaintiffs purchased their lots.
Adamy (common grantor) retained adjacent acreage and later sold a 5‑acre parcel to Steven and Sara Colford in 2013; that parcel was not part of the recorded Adamy subdivision and was not originally subject to the subdivision covenants.
Promotional brochures produced by Adamy’s real‑estate agents displayed the Adamy subdivision and adjacent parcels (including the Colford parcel) together and referenced covenants, but Adamy disavowed approval of those brochures.
After purchase, the Colfords built a large metal outbuilding on their 5‑acre parcel; plaintiffs alleged this violated the Adamy subdivision covenants and sought injunctive relief, nuisance, and conspiracy claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords and Adamy, concluding the Adamy subdivision covenants did not apply to the Colford parcel by implication; plaintiffs appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Adamy subdivision covenants apply to the Colford parcel via implied reciprocal negative servitudes	Walters: the Colford parcel is part of a common plan and should be bound by implied servitudes given Adamy’s sales/representations	Colford/Adamy: the Colford parcel was not in the recorded subdivision or covered by the 1976 declaration; no common plan intent to bind that parcel	Held: No. Doctrine does not apply because the development’s restrictions were imposed by recorded plat/declaration and the Colford parcel was outside that plan — plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation the parcel would be restricted
Whether promotional materials and other extrinsic evidence create a triable issue of intent for a general plan covering the Colford parcel	Walters: brochures and agent marketing support inference of a common plan including adjacent parcels	Colford/Adamy: Adamy disavowed the brochures; recorded declaration is controlling and negates a reasonable expectation that adjacent parcels were included	Held: Promotional materials did not overcome the record; the declaration/plat placed buyers on notice that the Colford parcel was outside the subdivision
Whether plaintiffs’ nuisance and civil conspiracy claims survive if covenants do not bind the Colford parcel	Walters: nuisance/conspiracy derive from covenant violation and thus should proceed	Colford/Adamy: those claims fail if covenants do not apply	Held: Dismissed — nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law because no covenant breach occurred as to the Colford property

Key Cases Cited

Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (scope of general plan and proving developer intent)
Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (application of implied reciprocal servitudes doctrine)
Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (restrictive covenants enforceable among property owners)
Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (historical treatment of covenants and servitudes)