Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
Neb.2017Background
- The Adamy subdivision was platted and dedicated in 1976 with a recorded plat and declaration of restrictive covenants applying to 14 lots within the subdivision.
- The Adamy family (common grantor) retained and later sold adjoining acreage, some sales without covenants; plaintiffs own lots inside the platted Adamy subdivision and the Colfords bought a 5-acre parcel adjacent to the subdivision in 2013 (the Colford Property).
- The Colfords built a large metal building on their 5-acre parcel; plaintiffs allege this violates the Adamy subdivision covenants and seek injunctive relief, nuisance damages, and conspiracy claims based on covenant violations.
- The Colford Property was conveyed without the Adamy subdivision covenants; Adamy later negotiated different, separate restrictions on the Colford Property and testified he never intended the Colford Property to be subject to the subdivision covenants.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Colfords and Adamy, concluding the Adamy subdivision covenants do not expressly apply to the Colford Property and the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes does not reach it; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colford Property is expressly burdened by Adamy subdivision covenants | Walters: subdivision covenants apply to neighboring Colford parcel | Colford/Adamy: covenants expressly apply only to platted subdivision lots; Colford parcel not in plat | Held: No — covenants do not expressly apply to Colford Property |
| Whether implied reciprocal negative servitudes make Colford Property subject to subdivision covenants | Walters: common grantor and promotional materials show a general plan making Colford parcel subject to same restrictions | Colford/Adamy: no intent to include Colford parcel; restrictions were recorded via declaration for the subdivision, obviating gap-filling doctrine | Held: No — doctrine does not apply because subdivision restrictions were imposed by recorded declaration and the Colford parcel lies outside the platted subdivision |
| Whether nuisance and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violation survive summary judgment | Walters: covenant violation supports nuisance/conspiracy claims | Colford/Adamy: if covenants do not apply, underlying claims fail | Held: No — claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not burden Colford Property |
| Standard for invoking implied reciprocal negative servitudes | Walters: evidence of developer representations and brochures supports implication | Colford/Adamy: where developer used a recorded declaration covering the development, purchasers cannot reasonably expect adjacent outside parcels to be included | Held: Court affirms that implied servitudes are narrowly applied and do not apply when a recorded declaration defines the development's scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (summary judgment standard and review)
- Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (discussing implied reciprocal negative servitudes and proof of general plan)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (doctrine application where common grantor imposes uniform restrictions)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (restrictive covenants enforceable between property owners when mutually beneficial)
- Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (background on enforcement of restrictive covenants)