With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the judgment is that in reliance upon Morfin's assurance that he would take care of Connie and Jessica if he were named beneficiary of the insurance and pension proceeds, Martinez unequivocally named him the beneficiary of the pension, and on at least one occasion (on the form that Ispat Inland acted upon) named him as beneficiary of the life insurance policy. Morfin clearly benefited as a result of his broken promise. Also, although strictly speaking Martinez himself was not placed in a worse position as a result of his action in reliance on Morfin's promise, his heirs and intended beneficiaries of the life insurance policies and pension, Connie and Jessica, were. This is sufficient to support a finding of constructive fraud. See Melloh, 261 Ind. at 656-59, 309 N.E.2d at 439-40 (<HOLDING>). In sum, we reiterate that the law presumes

A: holding that forfeiture of real property may be adjudicated before the seizure occurs because real property cannot abscond
B: 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
C: holding imposition of constructive trust on onehalf of brothers interest in decedent mothers real property for benefit of sister was particularly appropriate where there was evidence mother had orally stated that brother and sister should share all of her property equally even though deed for real property listed brother as sole owner
D: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
C.