831 A.2d 1006, 1013 n. 3 (D.C.2003) (quoting Gray v. Gray, 412 A.2d 1208, 1210 (D.C.1980)). ‘“Since a constructive trust is found for the purpose of preventing humans from being successful in shady bits of behavior, it is universally f laches is a complete bar to the appellees’ constructive trust action, because in cases of mixed law and equity, courts “consider themselves bound by statutes of limitations governing actions of law.” King v. Kitchen Magic, Inc., 391 A.2d 1184, 1187 (D.C.1978). This rule, as the trial court indicated, appears to be mere dicta in this jurisdiction. Courts refer to the rule only to establish that allegations of fraud trigger a well-established exception to the “rule.” See, e.g., Fed. Mktg. Co. v. Virginia Impression Prods. Co., 823 A.2d 513, 528 (D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); King, supra, 391 A.2d at 1187 (holding that
holding that rule 36 may not be used by the district court to fundamentally alter the defendants sentence from three to five years imprisonment in an attempt to conform the sentence to the intention of the parties as reflected in the plea agreement which provided that the prisoner would serve exactly five years holding new mexico statute of limitations for filing a  1983 action is three years holding that the trial courts limiting of claims to those occurring five years before the date of filing under laches was reasonable generous even inasmuch as it was two years beyond the statutory limitations pe riod holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony