With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". summarized by the Florida Supreme Court as follows: Where an agreement has been actually entered into, but the contract, deed, or other instrument in its written form does not express what was really intended by the parties thereto, equity has jurisdiction to reform the written instrument so as to conform to the intention, agreement, and understanding of all the parties. Jacobs v. Parodi 50 Fla. 541, 39 So. 833, 837 (1905). Thus, “Florida courts have consistently held that where a mistaken writing is the product of the parties’ mutual mistake, or unilateral mistake on the part of one party and inequitable conduct by the other, the writing should be reformed to accurately reflect the parties’ agreement.” Florida Masters Packing, Inc. v. Craig, 739 So.2d 1288, 1290 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. Royal Auto. Group, Inc.,

A: holding that a bona fide purchaser may be considered in privity with its predecessor
B: holding that parent tract transferees were bona fide purchasers without notice and thus outparcel deed was not subject to reformation
C: recognizing that if a creditors claim is subject to a bona fide dispute that creditor lacks standing to file an involuntary petition
D: holding that unsatisfied execution creditor had rights in property superior to all but prior secured creditors and bona fide purchasers for value
B.