Walters v. Colford
900 N.W.2d 183
Neb.2017Background
- Adamy platted the 14‑lot Adamy subdivision in 1976 and recorded a plat and declaration of restrictive covenants applying to lots inside that subdivision.
- Adamy retained and later sold adjacent acreage (including a 5‑acre tract) separately and without the subdivision covenants; that 5‑acre tract was sold to Steven and Sara Colford in 2013.
- Promotional brochures prepared by real‑estate agents showed the subdivision and adjacent Adamy‑owned parcels together and referenced covenants, but Adamy disavowed approval of those brochures.
- After purchase, the Colfords built a large metal outbuilding on their 5‑acre parcel; neighbors (the Walters et al.) sued claiming the Colford property was subject to the Adamy subdivision covenants via implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Colfords and Adamy, holding the Adamy subdivision covenants did not apply to the Colford property; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adamy subdivision covenants expressly burden the Colford property | Walters: subdivision covenants apply to Colford parcel | Colford: parcel is outside platted subdivision; no express covenants | Held: No express application; Colford property not in subdivision |
| Whether an implied reciprocal negative servitude binds the Colford property | Walters: developer’s common plan and sales materials implied intent to restrict adjacent lots, so servitude should be implied | Colford/Adamy: no common plan to include that parcel; developer used a recorded declaration for subdivision restrictions; brochures insufficient | Held: Doctrine does not apply—no material fact supports inclusion; declaration/plat shows Colford parcel outside plan |
| Whether doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes applies when developer records a declaration covering the subdivision but not adjacent retained land | Walters: implied servitude can still apply based on representations | Colford/Adamy: where developer uses a declaration, the gap‑filling doctrine is unnecessary and should not be applied | Held: Doctrine inapplicable when developer records a declaration covering the development; purchasers can rely on records |
| Dependent tort claims (nuisance, conspiracy) based on alleged covenant violation | Walters: nuisance and conspiracy flow from covenant breach by Colfords | Colford/Adamy: no covenant applies, so these tort claims fail | Held: Nuisance and conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law because covenants do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group, Inc., 293 Neb. 890, 880 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 2016) (summary judgment standard)
- Skyline Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Broekemeier, 276 Neb. 792, 758 N.W.2d 376 (Neb. 2008) (discusses implied reciprocal negative servitudes and proof of developer intent)
- Egan v. Catholic Bishop, 219 Neb. 365, 363 N.W.2d 380 (Neb. 1985) (doctrine applies where common grantor incorporates uniform restrictions by numerous conveyances)
- Plumb v. Ruffin, 213 Neb. 335, 328 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. 1982) (restrictive covenants enforceable among lot owners)
- Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1990) (historical discussion of implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine; doctrine used cautiously)