Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Adamy platted the 14‑lot Adamy subdivision in 1976; the plat and recorded declaration imposed restrictive covenants limiting structures (e.g., single‑family house and garage) to lots within that subdivision.
- The Adamy family retained and later sold adjacent acreage outside the subdivision, including a 5‑acre parcel sold to Steven and Sara Colford in 2013; that parcel (the Colford Property) was not included in the recorded subdivision or its declaration.
- Some promotional brochures for other property sales depicted the subdivision and adjacent Adamy land together and referenced covenants, but the owner (Adamy) disclaimed approving the brochures; the Colfords knew the subdivision had covenants but not their details.
- After purchase, the Colfords built a large metal building on their 5‑acre parcel; neighbors (the Walters and others) sued seeking mandatory injunction (and related nuisance and conspiracy claims) alleging the Colford Property was subject to the Adamy covenants by the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords (and Adamy), holding the doctrine did not apply because the subdivision’s restrictions were placed by recorded plat/declaration and did not extend to the Colford Property; the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Colford Property is subject to Adamy subdivision covenants via implied reciprocal negative servitudes | Walters: developer’s common ownership, sales materials, and uniform restrictions on lots imply the Colford parcel was intended to be similarly restricted | Colford/Adamy: Colford parcel lies outside the platted subdivision and the subdivision’s restrictions were imposed by recorded plat/declaration, not by individual‑deed gaps | Court: No — doctrine does not apply; recorded declaration/plat limits the plan to platted lots and obviates gap‑filling implication |
| Whether a general plan of development can be inferred from sales brochures and conduct | Walters: brochures and developer conduct show a common plan including adjacent parcels | Colford/Adamy: brochures were not authorized representations that bound the developer; recorded declaration governs | Court: Even if brochures exist, when restrictions are imposed by a recorded declaration the doctrine’s gap‑filling function is unnecessary and presumption limits plan to platted lots |
| Whether nuisance and conspiracy claims based on covenant violation survive if covenants do not apply | Walters: nuisance/conspiracy derive from covenant breach by Colfords | Colford/Adamy: if covenants do not apply, related tort claims fail as a matter of law | Court: Held for defendants — tort claims fail because covenants do not bind Colford Property |
| Standard for applying implied reciprocal negative servitudes when developer records declaration | Walters: implied servitude should be applied to protect purchasers’ expectations | Colford/Adamy: recording a declaration gives notice; doctrine should not extend beyond recorded scope | Court: Doctrine has no application where developer records a declaration controlling the development’s scope; buyer should rely on recorded instruments |
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 (doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes; proof of common plan and notice)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (application of implied servitudes when common grantor conveys lots with uniform restrictions)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (restrictive covenants may be enforced among owners when created for mutual benefit)