Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Adamy subdivision (platted 1976) contains 14 lots with recorded restrictive covenants (single-family houses, garage limits) recorded with the Butler County register of deeds.
- Adamy (common grantor) owned additional adjacent land, sold various parcels—some with and some without covenants; promotional brochures by real estate agents showed subdivision lots alongside adjacent parcels (including the 5-acre Colford Property).
- In 2013 Adamy sold the 5-acre Colford Property to Steven and Sara Colford without the Adamy subdivision covenants; later Adamy and the Colfords negotiated a different set of restrictions for that parcel.
- The Colfords built a large metal building on their parcel; neighboring Adamy subdivision owners (Walters et al.) sued seeking injunctions and asserting nuisance and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords and for Daniel Adamy, finding the Adamy subdivision covenants did not apply to the Colford Property under the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colford Property is subject to Adamy subdivision covenants via implied reciprocal negative servitudes | Walters: common grantor and promotional materials show a general plan; Colford lot intended to be subject to same restrictions | Colford/Adamy: Colford Property was conveyed without those covenants; Adamy used a recorded plat/declaration limiting covenants to subdivision lots; no intent to include Colford land | Court: No — doctrine does not apply where a recorded declaration/plat defines the development and shows the parcel is outside the plan; plaintiffs had record notice |
| Whether summary judgment was improper | Walters: factual disputes (e.g., marketing materials, grantor intent) preclude summary judgment | Colfords/Adamy: record shows no genuine issue—declaration/plat controls and no evidence of intent to include Colford Property | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendants; no material fact preventing judgment as a matter of law |
| Validity of nuisance and conspiracy claims premised on covenant violation | Walters: alleged covenant breach caused nuisance and conspiracy to violate covenants | Defs: covenants do not bind Colford; underlying alleged violations therefore fail | Court: Claims fail because covenants do not apply to Colford Property; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (summary judgment standard)
- Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes; proof and notice principles)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (application of common grantor/general plan analysis)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (restrictive covenants enforcement among owners)
- Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (restrictive covenants and servitudes jurisprudence)