Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a dispute over whether property outside a platted subdivision was subject to the subdivision’s restrictive covenants through the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes. The court held that the doctrine did not apply where the developer used express declarations of restrictions for the subdivision and the neighboring property was conveyed without the subdivision’s covenants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Colford Property was subject to the Adamy subdivision's restrictive covenants under the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
- Whether the plaintiffs' mandatory-injunction, nuisance, and conspiracy claims could proceed when the restrictive covenants did not apply to the Colford Property.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the claims resolved by the district court.
Holdings
- The doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes has no application where a developer creates restrictions on a development through a declaration of restrictions. The recorded express restrictions control within the planned development, and the doctrine does not extend to property outside that development.
- The Adamy subdivision restrictive covenants did not expressly or impliedly apply to the Colford Property.
- The nuisance and conspiracy claims failed as a matter of law because they were premised on an alleged violation of restrictive covenants that did not apply to the Colford Property.
Key quotations
“The doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes does not apply where the grantor restricts all of the properties within a planned development through a declaration of restrictions.” (319-320)
“Where the grantor uses a declaration, the express restrictions within the declaration control within the plan of development. The doctrine does not apply to property outside the planned development.” (320)
Factual background
The plaintiffs owned lots in the platted Adamy subdivision, which was created in 1976 with a plat and declaration containing restrictive covenants. The Colfords purchased a neighboring five-acre parcel from Adamy in 2013; the parcel was outside the subdivision and was not subject to the subdivision's covenants, although the parties later negotiated separate restrictions for it. After the Colfords constructed a large metal building on the parcel, the plaintiffs claimed that the subdivision covenants applied by implication under the doctrine of implied reciprocal negative servitudes.
Procedural history
The district court initially granted the Colfords summary judgment on the mandatory-injunction and nuisance claims but left an invasion-of-privacy claim unresolved and did not address the conspiracy claim. The first appeal was dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. After plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the invasion-of-privacy claim without prejudice, the district court granted summary judgment to the Colfords and Adamy on the remaining conspiracy claim. The Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket and affirmed.