“to hear and determine * * * [a]ny action that involves * * * a charitable trust.” In its complaint, FNB invoked the jurisdiction conferred upon the probate court by R.C. 2101.24 and sought declaratory relief involving the charitable trust created by the testator’s will. Appellants’ counterclaims sought contrary declaratory relief regarding the trust. R.C. 2101.31, therefore, controlled the proceedings at trial and vested the probate court with the discretion to determine whether the factual issues presented in the complaint and the counterclaims would be tried to a jury. We perceive the relief sought in FNB’s complaint and appellants’ counterclaims to be predominantly equitable in nature. See Gearhart v. Richardson (1924), 109 Ohio St. 418, 142 N.E. 890, paragraph one of the syllabus (<HOLDING>); accord Sessions v. Skelton (1955), 163 Ohio
holding that an action construing a will creating a trust is equitable in nature 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 recognizing that the determination is an equitable one recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy 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