Pardon me for saying so, but you are ill-informed and have much misinformed the poster. For you continued education in the field the equitable term "CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST" is not a phrase unique to a lost language! It is alive and well in American and Ohio Jurisprudence. So please allow me to offer the following:
Constructive Trust defined:
"A relationship by which a person who has obtained title to property has an equitable duty to transfer it to another, to whom it rightfully belongs, on the basis that the acquisition or retention of it is wrongful and would unjustly enrich the person if he or she were allowed to retain it."
“A constructive trust arises by operation of law against one who through any form of unconscionable conduct holds legal title to property where equity and good conscience demands that he should not hold such title.” Dixon v. Smith, 119 Ohio App. 3rd 308
“A resulting trust as one that the court of equity declares to exist where the legal estate in property is transferred or acquired by one under circumstances indicating that the beneficial interest is not intended to be enjoyed by the holder of the legal title.” Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, Inc. v. Lynch, 96 Ohio St.3d 118, 772 N.E.2d 105, 2002-Ohio-3748, at 56, citing First Natl. Bank of Cincinnati v. Tenney, 165 Ohio St. 513, 515, 138 N.E.2d 15 (1956).
“Where property is transferred to one person but another pays the purchase price, the law presumes a resulting trust exists in favor of the person paying for the property.” Hollon v. Abner, 1st Dist. No. C960182, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3814, at *5 (Aug. 29, 1997); Perich-Varie v. Varie, 11th Dist. No. 98-T-0029, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 3990, (Aug 1999).
"The creation of a constructive trust is premised upon the unjust enrichment that would result if the person holding legal title to the property were allowed to retain it . . . . . constructive trust may exist even where there is not evidence that the title to the property was obtained buy improper means. See: Ferguson v. Owens, 9 Ohio St 3rd 223, 459 N.E.2d 1293;McGrew v. Popham, 5th Dist. No. 05 CA 129, 2007-Ohio-428: Groza-Vance v. Vance, 162 Ohio App. 3rd 510 (10th Dist. 2005).
(Above are extracts take from a recently posted article by the Cincinnati offices of Finney Law Firm, LLC)