With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". nullify the effect of Section 55—9—104(j). See In re Bristol Assocs., Inc., 505 F.2d 1056, 1060 (3d Cir.1974); Robert H. Bowmar, Real Estate Interests as Security Under the UCC.: The Scope of Article Nine, 12 UCC L.J. 99, 107 (1979) (hereinafter Bowmar). In support of their position, the Alsups also cite to cases from other jurisdictions that have concluded that transactions involving security interests in real estate contracts, deeds of trust, mortgages, and leases are not subject to Article 9. See, e.g., Shuster v. Doane (In re Shuster), 784 F.2d 883 (8th Cir.1986) (applying Minnesota law held Article 9 did not apply to an assignment of a vendor’s interest in the real estate contract); First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Larson (In re Kennedy Mortgage Co.), 17 B.R. 957 (Bankr.D.N.J.1982) (<HOLDING>); In re Bristol, 505 F.2d at 1061-62 (holding a

A: holding article 9 inapplicable to an assignment of a mortgage on real estate
B: holding assignment of a mortgage was not subject to article 9
C: holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license
D: holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner
A.