This morning, the Florida Supreme Court heard RJ’s International v. Crown Castle, a high-stakes case poised to reshape how contractual terms in property agreements affect future landowners. The justices are weighing whether an attorney’s fee provision in an easement agreement qualifies as a real covenant that runs with the land - a novel question sent up by the Eleventh Circuit due to a lack of clear precedent.
"Under Florida law, when an easement agreement contains a prevailing-party attorney’s fee provision, is the fee provision a real covenant such that it runs with the land?"
The question stems from a dispute in which RJ’s International sought attorneys’ fees after a partial win in a case involving an easement. The district court denied the request, holding that the fee provision was a personal covenant enforceable only between the original parties - not a real covenant binding successors like Crown Castle.
This legal issue extends well beyond fee-shifting clauses. It echoes the Court’s 2022 decision in Hayslip v. U.S. Home, where an arbitration clause in a deed was found to bind subsequent owners. If the Court revisits or narrows that precedent, it could materially impact how contractual provisions in real estate documents are enforced.
Stay tuned for a breakdown of the arguments and what they may signal for the future of Florida property law.
