Representative Image (AI-generated)
How the dispute began
The property owner won $40,000 in trespass damages, but a separate dispute over legal fees eventually reached the state’s highest court. The dispute arose in 2020, when Crown Castle excavated parts of RJI’s property outside the authorised easement and installed underground fibre-optic cables. 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.
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 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. 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. 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.
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. Crown Castle South, LLC, case number SC2024-0547, with the opinion available on Justia. The jury awarded RJI $1 for breach of the easement agreement and $40,000 for trespass.
It argued that the legal-fees clause was attached to the property and should therefore apply to later owners as well. The ruling came in RJ’s International Trading, LLC v. 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. 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. It declined to award punitive damages. After the verdict, RJI sought additional attorney fees under the original agreement. 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.