Fairhurst v. Fairhurst: When an Executor Buys Estate Real Estate Without Court Approval

The Rhode Island Supreme Court issued a significant estate administration decision in Fairhurst v. Fairhurst, — A.3d —- (2026), unanimously affirming that a co-executor who purchased estate real estate without probate court approval engaged in unlawful self-dealing — and that a will provision purporting to waive that approval requirement cannot override the statute.

Background

Harry Fairhurst’s will named two of his seven children, William and Mary, as co-executors. The estate’s primary asset was the testator’s home located in Cumberland, Rhode Island. William and his wife purchased the property from the estate for $260,000 — below a $330,000 appraisal from Pawtucket Credit Union and a $285,000 comparative market analysis — without first obtaining probate court approval. William also drew a $17,192 advance from his own estate share to fund the purchase.

Three of the remaining five beneficiaries — James, Robert, and George Fairhurst — challenged the sale. The Cumberland Probate Court declared it invalid and illegal. The Superior Court affirmed. The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed unanimously, in a decision authored by Justice Lynch Prata on May 28, 2026.

The Statutory Framework: R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-19-9

The decision turns on R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-19-9, which governs executor sales of estate real property. The statute permits a probate court to authorize an executor to sell real estate — and to become the purchaser — but only upon petition with notice to interested parties, and only after the court determines the transaction will not prejudice the estate. The statute also requires that any private contract sale close for no less than the minimum price fixed by the court in its authorizing decree.

The court held that probate court approval under § 33-19-9 is not a procedural formality. It is the mechanism that fixes a minimum purchase price and protects beneficiaries when an executor occupies both roles: the person responsible for maximizing the estate’s value and the person seeking to purchase an estate asset at a price of their own choosing. This same principle was applied by the court in Barlow v. Barlow, 49 R.I. 117 (1928), which the court cited approvingly.

A Will Cannot Override the Statute

The will expressly authorized the co-executors to sell estate property without probate court approval, provided they gave notice to the other beneficiaries. The Supreme Court rejected that provision as controlling.

The court reaffirmed the baseline principle that a testator’s intent is entitled to effect — but not when giving it effect would violate the law. Where a testamentary provision and § 33-19-9 conflict, the statute governs. The General Assembly’s anti-self-dealing protections cannot be waived by testamentary language.

This has direct implications for estate planning practice in Rhode Island. Broad executor-power provisions that purport to authorize sales without court approval — a common feature in older wills and many form documents — do not eliminate the § 33-19-9 requirement when the executor is also the buyer or otherwise has a conflict of interest in the transaction.

The court also addressed a related defect in the notice the co-executors sent to the other devisees. Paragraph four of the will required the co-executors to notify the children of their option to purchase the property before any sale. The July 2020 letter sent by the estate’s attorney notified the devisees of their option but omitted the purchase price and other essential terms. The court held that an option to purchase real estate — like any contract for the sale of land — must include essential terms, including price, to be legally enforceable. A notice that omits those terms does not create a valid option, regardless of what the will requires. This point stands independently of the § 33-19-9 approval requirement.

Fiduciary Duty

The court reaffirmed that a co-executor, as a fiduciary, owes a duty of trust and confidence and must act with the utmost good faith and due regard for the interests of beneficiaries. William breached that duty on multiple fronts: he set his own purchase price for an asset he was obligated to administer on behalf of others, and he drew an advance from his own estate share to fund a purchase that had not been court-approved. The court found this conduct constituted self-dealing in violation of both § 33-19-9 and his fiduciary obligations.

Rhode Island courts have long treated executors as officers of the probate court, personally responsible for any breach of duty. This decision reinforces that the executor’s fiduciary obligation runs to all beneficiaries — not just to the testator’s general intent, and not to the executor’s own interests as a devisee. For more on choosing the right fiduciary, see our post on choosing the right trustee for your estate.

The Laches Defense

The co-executors argued that the beneficiaries’ delay in challenging the sale barred the claim under laches. The court rejected the argument, and its reasoning is instructive.

Laches requires not just delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to another — detrimental reliance on the status quo. The court found neither here. The devisees were not given adequate notice or sufficient time to act before the sale was consummated. The critical information — the purchase price, repair costs, and William’s intent to apply his own estate share toward the purchase — was never presented to probate court before closing. The devisees did not learn the full terms of the transaction until the first accounting was filed, at which point the sale was already done. Their delay in formally objecting was a product of that information gap, not negligence.

The practical point for beneficiaries: laches remains a real defense, and it is fact-specific. If you have concerns about how an estate is being administered, raise them early and in writing. But Fairhurst makes clear that a beneficiary who was never given the information needed to object in the first place will not be penalized for failing to object sooner.

Practical Takeaways

For executors: An executor who wants to purchase estate real property must petition the probate court, provide proper notice, and receive court approval before closing — even if the will appears to authorize a private sale. Taking an advance from your own estate share to fund the purchase compounds the conflict. When in doubt, seek independent legal advice separate from the estate’s representation. For a broader look at common missteps in estate administration, see our post on how to avoid common probate mistakes.

For beneficiaries: Rhode Island law gives you standing to challenge a real estate sale conducted without the court approval § 33-19-9 requires. The probate court has authority to void unauthorized transactions. A delayed challenge is not automatically foreclosed, but earlier action is always better.

For estate planners: Review executor-power provisions in existing estate plans, particularly in older wills that include broad language authorizing sales without court approval. When family members are named as co-executors and are likely candidates to purchase estate assets, the structural conflict § 33-19-9 is designed to address will apply regardless of what the will says. Fiduciary selection — not just document drafting — is part of sound Rhode Island estate planning.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an executor in Rhode Island buy property from the estate?

Yes, but only with prior probate court approval under R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-19-9. The executor must petition the court with proper notice, and the court must set a minimum purchase price before closing. A sale made without this approval is invalid, as the Rhode Island Supreme Court confirmed in Fairhurst v. Fairhurst (2026).

Can a will override the probate court approval requirement for executor sales in Rhode Island?

No. In Fairhurst, the Supreme Court held that a testamentary provision authorizing sales without court approval conflicts with § 33-19-9 and is invalid. Where a will and the statute conflict, the statute controls.

What happens if an executor sells estate property without probate court approval in Rhode Island?

The sale can be declared invalid and voided by the probate court. In Fairhurst, the court affirmed the probate court’s order declaring the sale “invalid and illegal” and requiring the property to remain vested in the estate.

What is executor self-dealing in Rhode Island?

Executor self-dealing occurs when an executor uses their fiduciary position for personal benefit at the expense of the beneficiaries. In Fairhurst, the co-executor set his own purchase price for estate property, drew an advance from his own estate share to fund the purchase, and did all of this without court approval — a textbook violation of § 33-19-9 and his fiduciary duty.

At Aptt Law, we counsel executors on their fiduciary duties throughout the estate administration process and work with beneficiaries who have questions about how an estate is being handled. If you have questions about a Rhode Island estate, call us at (401) 264-0654 or visit apttlaw.com to schedule a consultation.

This post is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed Rhode Island attorney for guidance specific to your situation.

Geoffrey M. Aptt, Esq. is the principal attorney at Aptt Law LLC, an estate planning and business law firm located at 5700 Post Road, Suite 11, East Greenwich, RI 02818. The firm serves clients throughout Rhode Island and Massachusetts. To schedule a planning conversation, call (401) 264-0654 or visit apttlaw.com.