Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Adamy platted and recorded the 14‑lot Adamy subdivision in 1976 with a plat and recorded restrictive covenants limiting structures (single‑family house, garage) to lots within the subdivision.
- Adamy also owned adjacent acreage including a 5‑acre parcel (Colford Property) sold to Steven and Sara Colford in 2013; that parcel was not part of the recorded subdivision and was not subject to the 1976 covenants when sold.
- Promotional brochures by real estate agents showed the subdivision and adjacent Adamy land (including the Colford Property) on maps and referenced covenants; Adamy denied approving the brochures and later executed different, limited restrictions on the Colford Property.
- After purchase the Colfords built a large metal building on their 5‑acre parcel; neighboring lot owners (Walters et al.) sued seeking injunctive relief for alleged covenant violations, nuisance, and conspiracy to violate covenants.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords and Adamy, concluding the Adamy subdivision covenants did not apply to the Colford Property via the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adamy subdivision covenants expressly burden the Colford Property | Walters: covenants apply (or should be implied) to Colford Property | Colford/Adamy: Colford Property not in plat and not expressly burdened | Held: Not expressly burdened; covenants apply only to platted lots |
| Whether an implied reciprocal negative servitude binds the Colford Property | Walters: doctrine applies based on common grantor, marketing materials, and uniform restrictions | Colford/Adamy: no common plan to include Colford Property; developer later used a declaration/plat so doctrine’s gap‑filler not applicable | Held: Doctrine does not apply because development restrictions were recorded by plat/declaration and Colford Property was outside the recorded plan |
| Whether promotional brochures and agent conduct created a factual dispute about developer intent | Walters: brochures and maps show implied representations of a unified plan including Colford Property | Colford/Adamy: brochures were not approved and buyers had recorded plat showing scope; no reasonable expectation that adjacent land was included | Held: No material factual dispute; recorded declaration/plat negates reasonable reliance on brochures |
| Whether nuisance and conspiracy claims survive if covenants do not apply | Walters: nuisance and conspiracy derive from alleged covenant violations | Colford/Adamy: those claims fail if covenants do not bind Colford Property | Held: Nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (Neb. 2008) (discusses general‑plan proof and notice for implied reciprocal servitudes)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (Neb. 1984) (doctrine applies where common grantor’s numerous conveyances include substantially uniform restrictions)
- Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (Neb. 2016) (summary judgment standard and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (Neb. 1983) (enforcement of mutually beneficial restrictive covenants among properties)
- Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (Neb. 1957) (historical treatment of restrictive covenant enforcement)