Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
deed takes effect from the date of delivery, and the recording of a deed is not essential to its validity as between the parties or those taking with notice,”); see also Sargent v. Baxter, 673 So.2d 979, 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“A grantor’s recording of a deed ... is generally presumed equivalent to delivery”). Thus, even if the Declaration clearly creates an easement for access to the dock on Parcel A, it was not a recorded document at the time that the Davids took the property. And due to the summary nature of the proceedings below, there is no evidence in the record that the Davids took possession of Parcel A with any knowledge of the Declaration or any other indication of a possible easement for access to the dock on Parcel A. See Kirma v. Norton, 102 So.2d 653, 657 (Fla.1958) ; cf. Flanigan’s Enters., Inc. v. Shoppes at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that chapter 7 trustee as hypothetical bona fide purchaser takes title to the real property free from all equitable liens
B. holding that under mississippi law a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice unless there is actual notice or circumstances which would put a purchaser on inquiry notice
C. holding that generally a bona fide purchaser without notice of easements takes the property free of such easements
D. holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser
E. holding that a bona fide purchaser may be considered in privity with its predecessor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.