RJ's International Trading, LLC v. Crown Castle South, LLC
Answering a question certified by the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court held that a prevailing-party attorney's fee provision in an easement agreement is not a real covenant that runs with the land, because it does not touch and concern the land. The Court articulated the touch-and-concern test as whether the obligation is sufficiently connected to how the land is used, occupied, or enjoyed, and declined to extend Hayslip v. U.S. Home Corp. (arbitration provision in a deed) to fee provisions.
📄 Read the official opinion (FL Supreme Court) →
Florida Court Tracker flags decisions like this the week they come down, sorted by practice area, alongside your research platform. See what else changed in Easements →
Key facts
- RJ's International Trading, LLC sought to enforce a prevailing-party attorney's fee provision in an easement agreement against Crown Castle South, LLC and its successor in interest, a sublessee easement holder.
- The trial court (or lower court) determined the fee provision was enforceable against the successor; RJ's International Trading appealed or the fee issue was litigated in the context of an easement dispute.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a first-impression Florida Supreme Court ruling that successors to easement-burdened or benefited land cannot invoke (or be saddled with) a prevailing-party fee clause in the original instrument absent a… — full analysis with a trial
Get decisions like this in your practice area every week: free for 14 days
The rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Your practice areas first
- Plain-English holdings & why it matters
- Statutes & rules that take effect in your area
- One Friday briefing for your team
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.