Walters v. Colford, 297 Neb. 302

Adamy platted the 14‑lot Adamy subdivision in 1976 and recorded plat and a declaration of restrictive covenants covering lots in that subdivision.
Adamy owned adjacent acreage (including the 5‑acre Colford Property) that was not included in the recorded subdivision or its declaration.
The Colfords purchased the 5‑acre parcel from Adamy in 2013; the sale did not make the Colford Property subject to the Adamy subdivision covenants, and Adamy later negotiated different restrictions specific to the Colford Property.
After purchase, the Colfords built a large metal building on their lot; neighboring lot owners (the Walters and others) sued claiming the structure violated the Adamy subdivision covenants.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, nuisance, and conspiracy claims premised on applying the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes to make the Colford Property subject to the subdivision restrictions.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords and Adamy; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the implied‑servitude doctrine did not apply where the developer used a recorded declaration covering the subdivision and the neighboring lot was outside that recorded plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Adamy subdivision covenants expressly bind Colford Property	Walters: covenants should apply to Colford Property	Colford: property is not in the recorded subdivision or declaration	Not expressly bound—the Colford Property is outside the platted subdivision
Whether implied reciprocal negative servitudes apply to Colford Property	Walters: developer’s conduct and marketing created a common plan so servitudes should be implied onto Colford Property	Colford/Adamy: no common plan covering the Colford land; developer used a recorded declaration for the subdivision, obviating the doctrine	Doctrine does not apply; recorded declaration limits the plan to platted lots and precludes implication to outside land
Whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on any implied representations	Walters: marketing and brochures created reasonable expectations that adjacent lots would be similarly restricted	Colford/Adamy: purchasers had constructive notice of the recorded plat/declaration and could not reasonably expect restrictions beyond the recorded plan	No reasonable reliance—recorded declaration gave notice that Colford Property was not included
Whether nuisance and conspiracy claims survive if covenants don’t apply	Walters: nuisance and conspiracy flow from covenant violation	Colford/Adamy: claims fail without an underlying covenant violation	Claims fail as a matter of law and summary judgment affirmed

Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (summary judgment standard and review)
Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (doctrine of implied reciprocal servitudes; proving common plan and notice)
Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (application of implied servitudes where developer conveyed lots with uniform restrictions)
Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (enforcement of restrictive covenants among property owners)