Walters v. Colford
297 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2017Background
- The Adamy subdivision was platted in 1976 with recorded restrictive covenants applicable to the 14 lots within that subdivision; Adamy (the common grantor) owned adjoining acreage including the 5-acre parcel later sold to the Colfords.
- The Adamy restrictive covenants were recorded via plat/declaration; those records were available at the county register of deeds when plaintiffs bought lots in the subdivision.
- Adamy sold the 5-acre Colford Property in 2013 without the Adamy subdivision covenants; later Adamy and the Colfords negotiated different restrictions specific to that parcel.
- The Colfords built a large metal building on their 5-acre parcel; neighbors (Walters and others) sued alleging violations of the Adamy subdivision covenants and related nuisance and conspiracy claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to 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 Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Adamy subdivision covenants apply to the Colford Property under the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes | Walters: Adamy was common grantor and marketing materials and sales conduct show a common plan such that the Colford Property should be subject to the same covenants | Colford/Adamy: The Colford parcel was outside the recorded subdivision/declaration; Adamy did not intend to subject that parcel to the subdivision covenants and later placed different restrictions on it | Court: No. Doctrine does not apply where the development used a recorded declaration/plat restricting only the platted lots; purchasers could rely on the public record, so no implied servitude on Colford Property |
| Whether nuisance and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violations survive if covenants do not apply | Walters: Nuisance and conspiracy flow from the alleged covenant breach | Colford/Adamy: If covenants do not bind the Colford Property, those derivative tort claims fail | Court: Dismissed. Nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not apply |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Walters: Facts/factual disputes (e.g., marketing materials) preclude summary judgment | Colford/Adamy: No genuine issue of material fact that covenants do not apply to unplatted parcel outside recorded declaration | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendants — evidence viewed in plaintiffs' favor still shows no application of the doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (2008) (discusses requirements for implied reciprocal servitudes and treating intent by conduct/extrinsic evidence)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (1985) (applies common-grantor/general-plan principles for implied servitudes)
- Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (2016) (summary judgment standards and viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (1983) (recognizes enforcement of mutually beneficial restrictive covenants among property owners)
- Reed v. Williamson, 164 Neb. 99 (1957) (historical treatment of restrictive covenants binding property owners)
- Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990) (explains implied-servitude doctrine as gap-filling where developers used deed-by-deed restrictions rather than a declaration)