Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
arisen in an action “for the recovery of money only, or specific real * * * property.” Nor are we persuaded that appellants’ counterclaims transformed the action into one “for the recovery of * * * personal property.” Even if we were to so characterize appellants’ counterclaims, based upon their prayer for a declaration requiring the intestate distribution of the property, such relief would merely be incidental to the declaratory relief sought and would ripen only upon the entry of declaratory relief favorable to appellants. See Murello Constr. Co., supra, 29 Ohio App.3d at 334, 29 OBR at 461-462, 505 N.E.2d at 638. We conclude, instead, that the relief sought was primarily and predominantly equitable. See Gearhart, supra, 109 Ohio St. 418, 142 N.E. 890, paragraph one of the syllabus ; accord Sessions, supra, 163 Ohio St. 409, 56
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. recognizing that the determination is an equitable one
C. 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
D. holding that an action construing a will creating a trust is equitable in nature
E. recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.