Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Adamy recorded a 1976 plat and declaration creating the Adamy subdivision with restrictive covenants applicable to the 14 lots within that subdivision.
- Adamy retained and later sold adjacent acreage (including a 5-acre parcel) without those subdivision covenants; the 5-acre parcel was sold to the Colfords in 2013 and initially had no covenants.
- Real estate brochures prepared by agents marketed parcels (some within the subdivision and some adjacent) together and referenced covenants, but Adamy disavowed approval of the brochures.
- The Colfords built a large metal storage building on their 5-acre parcel; neighbors (Walters et al.) sued claiming the structure violated the Adamy subdivision covenants.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, nuisance, and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violations; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the Adamy covenants did not apply to the Colford property via implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Adamy subdivision’s restrictive covenants apply to the Colford property via implied reciprocal negative servitudes? | Walters: common grantor and marketing created a general development plan; Colford parcel should be subject to same covenants by implication. | Colford/Adamy: property was outside the recorded subdivision and not subject to those covenants; no intent to include the parcel; later negotiated, different restrictions. | No. Court held no implied servitude because the development’s restrictions were created by recorded plat/declaration and the Colford parcel was outside that plan. |
| Is the implied-reciprocal-servitudes doctrine applicable where developer used a recorded declaration/plat for the subdivision? | Walters: marketing and conduct can show a general plan that includes adjacent parcels despite the declaration. | Colford/Adamy: recorded declaration and plat define the plan’s scope; doctrine is a gap-filler and does not apply where a declaration defines the development. | Held: Doctrine does not apply where a developer followed the practice of recording a declaration restricting the entire subdivision; buyers should rely on the records. |
| Do nuisance and civil conspiracy claims premised on alleged covenant violations survive if covenants do not apply? | Walters: covenant violation underlies nuisance/conspiracy; thus claims should proceed. | Defendants: If covenants do not bind Colford property, there is no wrongful predicate for those claims. | Held: Dismissed as a matter of law—nuisance and conspiracy claims fail because covenants do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. 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; proving developer intent)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (application of implied servitudes and common grantor requirements)
- Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (doctrine background and limitations)
- Nashua Hosp. v. Gage, 85 N.H. 335 (historical discussion of implied servitudes)