Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Adamy platted the 14-lot Adamy subdivision in 1976 and recorded a plat and declaration containing restrictive covenants limiting structures (single-family residence and garage). The plat/declaration was on file when plaintiffs bought their lots.
- Adamy retained and later sold adjacent acreage (including a 5-acre parcel sold to the Colfords in 2013) that was not included in the recorded subdivision and was not, at the time of sale, subject to the Adamy subdivision covenants.
- Promotional brochures by real estate agents showed the subdivision lots and adjacent Adamy-owned land together and referenced covenants; Adamy denied approving those materials.
- After purchase the Colfords built a large metal building on their 5-acre parcel; plaintiffs sued asserting the building violated the Adamy subdivision covenants, seeking mandatory injunction and related tort claims.
- 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 Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adamy subdivision covenants expressly bind Colford Property | Walters: covenants apply to neighboring land because of common grantor and marketing; Colford building violates covenants | Colford/Adamy: Colford Property was not part of the recorded subdivision; no express covenant applies | No — covenants do not expressly apply to Colford Property |
| Whether implied reciprocal negative servitudes make covenants apply to Colford Property | Walters: developer’s conduct, brochures, and multiple conveyances show a common plan; implication is needed to protect buyers’ expectations | Colford/Adamy: developer used a recorded plat/declaration covering only the subdivision; doctrine is a gap-filler and does not apply where a declaration shows scope | No — doctrine does not apply; recorded declaration limits the plan and defeats reasonable expectation of restriction on adjacent parcel |
| Scope of implied-reciprocal-servitudes doctrine when developer records a declaration | Walters: doctrine can still apply based on representations and conduct | Colford/Adamy: recording a declaration for the subdivision means buyers should rely on public record; doctrine’s gap-filling not triggered | Held that doctrine generally has no application where a declaration of restrictions was recorded covering the development; it is a gap-filler for deed-by-deed schemes |
| Effect on related tort claims (nuisance, conspiracy) premised on covenant violation | Walters: nuisance and conspiracy flow from alleged covenant breach | Colford/Adamy: if covenants do not apply, related claims fail | Held: nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not bind 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 (doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes; proof of general plan)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (applying implied servitudes doctrine requirements)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (enforceability of restrictive covenants among property owners)
- Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (historical treatment of restrictive covenants)