to the Holt plaintiffs regarding Betsy’s prior lawsuit and the settlement thereof bar application of the doctrine of laches at the summary judgment stage under the third prong of the above test. That is, plaintiffs testified that defendants told them that Betsy’s suit was without merit, that she was simply greedy, and when it came time for plaintiffs to sign off on the settlement in the case, defendants refused to disclose any details thereof, telling plaintiffs that “it didn’t concern” them. Further, it is undisputed that the record of Betsy’s 1990 lawsuit by clear and convincing evidence. Wilson, 286 S.W.2d at 556. A parol trust may be created even “where a deed is absolute on its face.” Evans, 258 S.W.2d at 921; see also Winn v. William, 292 Ky. 44, 165 S.W.2d 961, 965 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Here, the undisputed facts demonstrate that,
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 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 where naked trust created the division of naked legal title and equitable title which may be united at option of cestui que trust holding that the legal title holders to real property held it in constructive trust for the equitable title holder who was entitled to the real property based on an earlier contract holding that by operation of law a trust results where a person holds naked title for the benefit of another