In Biros v. U Lock Inc., the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the record supported the following conclusions: 1) Appellee paid for a property on behalf of Appellant; 2) Appellee expected repayment from Appellant; 3) Appellant never repaid Appellee; 4) Appellee had no adequate remedy at law because Appellant lacked resources, other than the property, with which to compensate Appellee. There was no dispute that Appellee was entitled to repayment. Thus, the trial court faced a choice between imposing a constructive trust and awarding the property to Appellee or entering judgment for Appellant and trusting that the conclusion of this litigation would result in an influx of cash to Appellant with which it would repay its debt. The Court held that the trial court’s choice of the former was within the appropriate bounds for a court sitting as fact finder.
