Fitzgerald v. O'Connell

Timothy Fitzgerald and his wife (plaintiffs) agreed to purchase a parcel of unimproved real estate (the property) from Gertrude O’Connell for $500—$250 due on execution and $250 due at closing in October 1963. The property abutted the Fitzgeralds’ current property and would allow for expansion. The Fitzgeralds paid $250 on execution. Gertrude died in July 1963, prior to closing the transaction. Gertrude had devised the property to her son Jay, daughter-in-law Cathleen O’Connell (defendant), and two granddaughters (defendants). The Fitzgeralds sent a check of $250 to Jay and Cathleen, who never cashed it. According to Jay, the closing could not occur for the time being because Gertrude’s estate was in disarray. Likewise, Gertrude’s estate attorney advised that the conveyance must wait until probate proceedings were completed. In October 1966, Jay died, and Cathleen acquired his property interest. The Fitzgeralds, through counsel, followed up with Cathleen as to the property, but Jay’s estate was now unsettled in addition to Gertrude’s. In July 1970, Gertrude’s estate finally settled. In February 1972, a lien on the property for inheritance taxes due from Jay’s estate was discharged. Thereafter, the Fitzgeralds learned that Cathleen intended to sell the property to a third party. The Fitzgeralds publicly filed their contract and, in October 1973, sued Cathleen and the granddaughters (collectively, the O’Connells). The Fitzgeralds sought specific performance of the contract, while the O’Connells asserted the defense of laches. The trial court found that the applicable statute of limitations was 20 years, which had not expired, but that laches applied. In the court’s view, the Fitzgeralds should have filed suit as soon as Gertrude’s estate had closed. The court entered judgment for the O’Connells. The Fitzgeralds appealed, arguing that laches could not be asserted if the limitations period had not expired or that laches did not apply.