## Facts

- In 1963, Timothy and Mrs. Fitzgerald agreed in writing to buy an unimproved parcel adjacent to their property from Gertrude O’Connell for $500 ($250 on execution; $250 at an October 1963 closing).
- Gertrude died in July 1963 before closing; her will devised the property interests to family members, including Jay O’Connell, Cathleen O’Connell, and two granddaughters.
- The Fitzgeralds tendered the remaining $250 to Jay and Cathleen; the check was not cashed, and they were told the conveyance had to await completion of probate proceedings.
- Jay later died (1966), further complicating title; the Fitzgeralds periodically sought to complete the transaction and were told the estates remained unsettled.
- Gertrude’s estate settled in 1970, and an inheritance-tax lien tied to Jay’s estate was discharged in 1972.
- After learning Cathleen intended to sell to a third party, the Fitzgeralds recorded the 1963 contract and filed an equity action in 1973 seeking specific performance.

## Issues

1. Whether laches may bar an equity action for specific performance of a land sale contract when the suit is filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
2. If laches can apply within the limitations period, whether the purchasers’ delay and any resulting prejudice supported a laches finding.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that, for this type of equity action, a suit filed within the applicable statutory limitations period is treated as timely as a matter of law, and laches is unavailable as a defense.
- Because the action was brought within the applicable 20-year period, the trial court erred in barring the claim on laches grounds.
- The plaintiffs were entitled to pursue specific performance consistent with the court’s holding.

## Legal Principles

- When an equity action is brought within the limitations period fixed by the applicable statute, the action is considered diligently brought and laches is not available to shorten that legislatively chosen period.
- In Rhode Island, equity follows the law in determining timeliness where the legislature has set an outer time limit for analogous actions.
- Generally, laches requires proof of unexplained delay and resulting prejudice, with the burden on the party asserting the defense; however, that defense does not apply where the suit is timely under the controlling limitations period in this context.

## Conclusion

The court held that a purchaser’s suit for specific performance of a land sale contract, filed within the applicable 20-year limitations period, cannot be defeated by laches, and it reversed the judgment that had denied relief on that basis.


Fitzgerald v. O’Connell, 120 R.I. 240, 386 A.2d 1384 (R.I. 1978)