that the required operative facts can be proved by parol.’” Hertz v. Klavan, 374 A.2d 871, 873 (D.C.1977) (quoting 4A Richard R. Powell & Patrick J. Rohan, Powell on Real Property ¶ 594, at 567 (1974)). Furthermore, in a constructive trust action, there is no set limitations period, because it is not at all self-evident that substantial prejudice to the defendant’s ability to defend himself is an inherent consequence of plaintiffs delay in prosecuting the case. As distinguishable from a suit over a discrete event, an equitable action involving property rights is by nature not so time-sensitive.... Rather, the guiding principle is one of laches. Granville v. Hunt, 566 A.2d 65, 68 (D.C.1989) (citations omitted); accord, Interdonato v. Interdonato, 521 A.2d 1124, 1136 (D.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). 1. Laches Mr. Alvord argues that the doctrine
holding that under california law a constructive trust may be sought only by the equitable owner of the trust res not by a creditor of the equitable owner holding that the operative facts of a constructive trust can be proved by parol recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy holding that a constructive trust is imposed in order to prevent injustice and that such a trust may be imposed when the circumstances show that it would be inequitable for the holder of legal title to retain the property holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute