The Florida Supreme Court ruled on October 29, 2026, that a prevailing-party attorney’s fee provision in an easement agreement does not run with the land. This decision affects how property law is interpreted in Florida, particularly regarding obligations that may bind future owners of land. The ruling came in the case of RJ’s International Trading, LLC v. Crown Castle South, LLC (Docket SC2024-0547), where the court addressed whether such fee provisions could be enforced against successors to the original parties of the easement.

The case arose from a dispute between RJ’s International Trading, LLC (RJI) and Crown Castle South, LLC (Crown Castle) over the use of land in Miami. RJI owned a property subject to an easement agreement that allowed Crown Castle to use a portion of RJI’s land for telecommunications. The conflict began in 2020 when Crown Castle excavated beyond the easement's boundaries to install fiber optic cables, leading RJI to sue for trespass and breach of the easement agreement.

Initially, a federal district court found Crown Castle liable for trespass and breach of the easement, awarding RJI $40,001 in damages. After the trial, RJI sought attorney’s fees based on the prevailing-party provision in the easement agreement, arguing that it should bind Crown Castle as a successor. However, Crown Castle opposed the motion, claiming the fee provision was too disconnected from the land to be enforceable against them.

The district court sided with Crown Castle, denying RJI’s request for attorney’s fees. RJI then appealed, prompting the Eleventh Circuit to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court: whether the attorney’s fee provision in the easement agreement runs with the land under Florida law.

In its ruling, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the fee provision does not run with the land. The court explained that for a covenant to run with the land, it must meet three requirements: the original parties must intend for successors to be bound, successors must have notice of the covenant, and the covenant must “touch and concern” the land. The court focused on the last requirement, determining that the fee provision was too attenuated from the land to meet this standard.

The court stated, "the fee provision itself does not meaningfully bear on the use of the land or otherwise enhance the day-to-day enjoyment of it or impact its mode of occupation."

The court also distinguished this case from a previous ruling in Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp., where an arbitration provision was found to touch and concern the land. The court noted that the arbitration provision was directly related to resolving defects in the property, while the attorney’s fee provision only became relevant after a dispute was resolved.

This ruling has significant implications for property law in Florida. It clarifies that attorney’s fee provisions in easement agreements do not automatically bind successors, which could affect how such agreements are structured in the future. Property owners and developers may need to reconsider how they draft easement agreements and what obligations they intend to impose on future owners.

The decision also aligns with the majority opinion from other jurisdictions, which have similarly ruled that attorney fee provisions do not run with the land. This could lead to more uniformity in how such provisions are treated across different states.

Looking ahead, RJI and Crown Castle may still pursue other legal avenues following this ruling, but the court's decision on the attorney’s fee provision is final. The ruling cannot be appealed further, as it addresses a certified question of law from the Eleventh Circuit. There are no related cases pending that would challenge this specific ruling at this time.