Walters v. Colford, 297 Neb. 302

Adamy platted the 14‑lot Adamy subdivision in 1976; the plat and a declaration of restrictive covenants were recorded and applied to lots within that subdivision.
Adamy retained and later sold adjacent acreage (including a 5‑acre parcel) outside the recorded subdivision; some adjacent sales were made without restrictive covenants.
The Colfords bought a 5‑acre parcel from Adamy in 2013 that was not subject to the Adamy subdivision covenants; they later built a large metal building on it.
The Walters and other neighboring lot owners (plaintiffs) sued the Colfords and Adamy seeking a mandatory injunction, nuisance, and conspiracy claims premised on alleged violations of the Adamy subdivision covenants.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding the Adamy subdivision covenants did not apply to the Colford Property via implied reciprocal negative servitudes; the Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes make the Colford Property subject to Adamy subdivision covenants?	The Colford Property was conveyed by the common grantor and promotional materials suggested a common plan; therefore the covenants should be implied to protect buyers’ expectations.	The Adamy development used a recorded plat and declaration of restrictions; the Colford Property lies outside that declared subdivision and was not conveyed with the same deed restrictions.	No. The doctrine does not apply where a developer used a recorded declaration/plat to restrict the development; the Colford Property is outside the declared subdivision and not subject to implied servitudes.
Can plaintiffs enforce nuisance and conspiracy claims based on alleged covenant violations if the covenants do not reach the Colford Property?	Nuisance and conspiracy claims arise from the alleged covenant breach and should proceed.	If the covenants do not apply to the Colford Property, there is no underlying wrongful covenant breach to support nuisance or conspiracy claims.	No. Because the covenants do not apply, the related nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law.

Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792 (2008) (discusses proof of a developer's general plan and notices for implied servitudes)
Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365 (1985) (applies the implied reciprocal servitudes doctrine where deeds incorporated uniform restrictions)
Pierce v. Landmark Management Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890 (2016) (standards for reviewing summary judgment)
Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335 (1983) (recognition that restrictive covenants may be mutually enforceable among lot owners)
Nashua Hospital v. Gage, 85 N.H. 335 (1932) (early exposition of implied reciprocal servitudes doctrine)