Florida Supreme Court Rules Easement Attorney Fee Clauses Do Not Run With the Land on October 29, 2026

On October 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in RJ's International Trading, LLC v. Crown Castle South, LLC, No. SC2024-0547, that a prevailing party attorney's fee provision in an easement agreement does not run with the land under Florida law. The provision binds only the original parties to the agreement, not later owners or users of the property.

The Court answered a question certified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and returned the case to that court. The opinion is not final until the time to file a rehearing motion expires and any motion filed is decided.

The Easement Dispute Behind the Ruling

More than 30 years ago, Hidden Valley Corporation owned two neighboring properties in Miami. It leased one to BellSouth Mobility and granted BellSouth and its successors an easement to use part of the other parcel for telecommunication purposes.

The easement agreement included a "Remedies for Breach" section. It stated that if either "party hereto" had to sue to enforce the agreement, the prevailing party would recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the other side.

Both properties later changed hands. RJ's International Trading, LLC came to own the parcel burdened by the easement, and Crown Castle South, LLC subleased the neighboring property and used the easement. In 2020, Crown Castle excavated beyond the easement and installed underground fiber optic cables.

RJ's sued in federal court. A jury awarded $1 for breach of the easement agreement and $40,000 for trespass. The district court then denied RJ's request for attorney's fees under the easement agreement, and RJ's appealed.

The Three Requirements for a Covenant to Run With the Land

A covenant that runs with the land binds later owners even though they never made the promise themselves. Under Florida law, three conditions must be met. The original parties must intend to bind successors, successors must have notice of the covenant, and the covenant must touch and concern the land.

The case turned on the third requirement. Justice Grosshans, writing for the Court, stated that courts should ask whether the obligation is sufficiently connected to how the land is used, occupied or enjoyed.

Why the Fee Provision Did Not Qualify

The Court found the fee provision too far removed from the land. It does not restrict how the property may be used or govern who may use it. It applies only after a dispute has been resolved in court and serves only to allocate litigation costs between the parties.

The Court relied on Caulk v. Orange County, a Fifth District decision holding that a reservation of eminent domain proceeds did not run with the land. It also noted that most courts outside Florida that have addressed the question reached the same result.

The Court declined to extend Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp., its 2022 decision holding that an arbitration provision in a builder's deed ran with the land. In Hayslip, arbitration was the means of resolving physical construction defects in the home itself. A fee provision does not govern how property disputes are resolved.

Justices Barrios and Tanenbaum concurred in the result only. Justice Barrios wrote that the touch and concern test requires a direct effect on the physical use of the property and questioned Hayslip. Justice Tanenbaum wrote that a prevailing party fee provision can never be a real covenant.

Effect on Property Owners and Easement Holders

Under the ruling, a successor to land subject to an easement is not bound by a prevailing party fee clause in the original easement agreement as a covenant running with the land. Owners of burdened property and companies that use easements, such as utility and telecommunication providers, are the groups most directly affected.

The decision applies statewide to easements on property in Brevard County and elsewhere in Florida. It addresses only the property law question certified to the Court. The Eleventh Circuit had separately ruled that RJ's was not a "party hereto" under the agreement's own terms, and that issue was not before the Supreme Court of Florida. Easement and covenant questions of this kind often arise in real estate transactions and in property litigation.