A property agreement can continue to affect land even after the original owners have sold it. But do all the conditions in such an agreement automatically apply to future owners? The Florida Supreme Court has addressed this question in a dispute involving a telecommunications company that installed underground fibre-optic cables beyond an authorised easement. The property owner won $40,000 in trespass damages, but a separate dispute over legal fees eventually reached the state's highest court. In an opinion dated October 29, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that an agreement requiring the losing party to pay the winner's attorney fees does not automatically apply to future property owners. The ruling came in RJ's International Trading, LLC v. Crown Castle South, LLC, case number SC2024-0547, with the opinion available on Justia. The court answered a legal question referred by the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit about when contractual obligations can pass to subsequent owners.
How the dispute began
The dispute dates back more than three decades, when Hidden Valley Corporation owned two neighbouring properties in Miami. It leased one property to BellSouth Mobility and allowed the telecommunications company to use part of the adjoining property for its operations. The arrangement was formalised through an easement agreement. An easement gives someone the legal right to use another person's property for a specific purpose without owning it. In this case, the agreement permitted the telecommunications company and its successors to use a defined portion of the neighbouring land. The agreement also stated that if either party filed a lawsuit to enforce its terms, the losing party would have to pay the successful party's reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Over the years, ownership of the properties changed hands. Eventually, RJ's International Trading LLC (RJI) acquired the property covered by the easement, while Crown Castle South LLC exercised rights under the agreement through a sublease from BellSouth.
Fibre cables installed beyond the easement
The dispute arose in 2020, when Crown Castle excavated parts of RJI's property outside the authorised easement and installed underground fibre-optic cables. RJI filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging trespass and breach of the easement agreement, among other claims. The district court found that Crown Castle had gone beyond the authorised boundaries. The case then proceeded to a six-day jury trial to determine damages. The jury awarded RJI $1 for breach of the easement agreement and $40,000 for trespass. It declined to award punitive damages. After the verdict, RJI sought additional attorney fees under the original agreement. It argued that the legal-fees clause was attached to the property and should therefore apply to later owners as well. However, the district court rejected the request, finding that the clause was not sufficiently connected to the property's use or enjoyment to automatically bind future owners.
Why the legal-fees clause became important
RJI challenged the decision, taking the dispute to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court sought clarification from the Florida Supreme Court on whether an attorney-fees clause in an easement agreement could automatically apply to people who acquired the property later. The Eleventh Circuit had separately considered whether RJI could claim the benefit of the provision as a party to the original agreement. However, that question was not part of the legal issue referred to the Florida Supreme Court. The central question was whether a contractual promise to pay legal expenses could become a permanent obligation attached to the land, even when a future owner had not signed the original agreement. The Florida Supreme Court explained that not every condition in a property agreement automatically applies to future owners. For an obligation to continue after a property is sold, it must have a direct connection to the land and its use or enjoyment. The court found that the attorney-fees clause did not meet this requirement. It dealt with who would pay legal expenses if a dispute went to court, rather than how the property could be used or maintained.
How the court distinguished an earlier ruling
The justices also compared the dispute with Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp., a 2022 Florida Supreme Court decision involving an arbitration clause in a property deed. In that earlier case, the court allowed the arbitration provision to apply to future owners because it concerned construction defects that could affect the condition of a home. The justices said the two situations were different. While construction-related arbitration could directly affect the property, an attorney-fees clause simply determines who pays legal costs after a dispute. It does not determine how the land is used or enjoyed. The court therefore ruled that the legal-fees provision could not automatically bind subsequent property owners.
What happens next?
The Florida Supreme Court answered the Eleventh Circuit's question in the negative and sent the matter back to the federal appeals court for further proceedings. The decision does not cancel RJI's earlier $40,000 trespass award. Instead, it clarifies that a legal-fees clause in an old property agreement does not automatically become an obligation for everyone who owns the land later. The ruling draws a distinction between conditions that directly concern a property's use and contractual terms that deal only with expenses arising from legal disputes.
