The Florida Supreme Court issued a split opinion on October 29, 2026, declaring that legal-fee provisions in property easements do not automatically pass to new owners. Justice Karla Francene D. Morgan wrote the majority opinion in the case RJ's International Trading, LLC v. Crown Castle South, LLC (SC2024-0547). The ruling directly answers a question referred by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit regarding the enforceability of contractual obligations against parties who never signed the original deed.
The dispute stems from a 2020 incident where Crown Castle South excavated land in Miami outside the authorized easement boundaries to install fiber-optic cables. A federal jury in the Southern District of Florida awarded RJ’s International Trading $40,000 for trespass, rejecting requests for punitive damages. RJ’s argued it should also collect attorney fees based on a clause in the original 1990s agreement between Hidden Valley Corporation and BellSouth Mobility. The district court denied this, finding the fee-shifting provision did not "run with the land." The Eleventh Circuit stayed its decision to ask the state’s highest court for clarification on whether such clauses bind successors in title.
The court distinguished this case from the 2022 Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp. decision, where an arbitration clause was enforced against a future owner because it related directly to construction defects affecting the home's condition. Here, the justices found the attorney-fee clause merely dictated who pays legal costs after a lawsuit, rather than governing the use or enjoyment of the property itself. Because the clause lacked a direct connection to the land's physical use, it failed the test for becoming a permanent obligation attached to the real estate.
This decision shifts the financial risk of property litigation back to the original signatories. Future buyers in Florida can no longer expect to inherit the burden of legal fees from predecessor disputes unless they explicitly assume those contracts. The Eleventh Circuit will now apply this state-law interpretation to the pending federal case, likely finalizing the damages calculation without the additional fee award.
The ruling has immediate implications for real estate transactions involving telecom infrastructure. Companies leasing land for utility easements must now scrutinize whether their dispute-resolution mechanisms will survive a sale. Buyers should assume that unless a contract explicitly states it binds successors, they are not liable for the legal battles of their predecessors.