Walters v. Colford, 297 Neb. 302

Plaintiffs own lots in the platted Adamy subdivision (14 lots; plat and declaration filed in 1976) whose recorded restrictive covenants limit structures (single-family dwellings, garage rules).
The Adamy family (common grantor) retained and later sold adjacent acreage, including a 5‑acre parcel sold to defendants Steven and Sara Colford in 2013.
The Colfords’ 5‑acre parcel was conveyed without being expressly subject to the Adamy subdivision covenants; later the seller and Colfords negotiated different, narrower restrictions on that parcel.
The Colfords built a large metal storage building on their parcel; plaintiffs sued seeking mandatory injunction (breach of covenants), nuisance, and civil conspiracy, claiming the Colford parcel is subject to Adamy covenants by the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Colfords (and Adamy) finding the Adamy covenants do not apply to the Colford parcel; plaintiffs appealed.
Supreme Court affirmed: because the Adamy development used a recorded plat/declaration covering only subdivision lots, the implied‑servitude doctrine does not reach the Colford parcel; dependent nuisance and conspiracy claims fail.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Adamy subdivision covenants expressly bind Colford property	Walters: Colford parcel is subject via implied reciprocal negative servitudes	Colford: Parcel not in subdivision; no express covenant in deed	Held: No — covenants do not expressly apply
Whether doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes applies	Walters: common grantor, promotional materials, and conduct show a general plan making Colford parcel subject to same restrictions	Colford/Adamy: No general plan covering that parcel; seller used a recorded declaration for the subdivision; no intent to include Colford parcel	Held: No — doctrine does not apply where developer used a recorded declaration covering subdivision lots only
Scope/boundaries of a general development plan	Walters: marketing and maps showing adjacent land with subdivision support inclusion	Colford/Adamy: Plat/declaration on record presumes plan limited to platted lots; buyer should rely on records	Held: Presumption that recorded plat/declaration defines plan; off‑plat land not included absent clear evidence otherwise
Validity of nuisance and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violation	Walters: nuisance/conspiracy flow from alleged covenant breach by Colfords	Colford/Adamy: If covenants don’t apply, related claims fail	Held: Claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not apply to Colford parcel

Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, 293 Neb. 890 (summary judgment standard)
Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes and proof of general plan)
Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (common‑grantor restrictions and application of implied‑servitude doctrine)
Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (restrictive covenants enforceable among owners in development)
Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (restrictive covenants enforceability principles)
Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (discussion of implied reciprocal negative servitudes)
Nashua Hospital v. Gage, 85 N.H. 335 (doctrine elements and reliance on developer representations)