With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 988. We are mindful that Utley involved two equitable interests (an option contract and a contract of sale) rather than a prior legal interest and subsequent equitable interest. Utley did not decide whether an equitable owner may enjoy bona fide purchaser status as against a prior legal interest of which he has no notice. That factual distinction, however, does not detract from the importance of Utley to show a court of appeal’s movement away from the rigid preclusion of equitable owners from bona fide purchaser status. In addition, we note that after Utley another California Court of Appeal indicated that the distinction between legal and equitable ownership alone is not determinative of a quiet title action. See Chalmers v. Raras, 200 Cal.App.2d 682, 19 Cal.Rptr. 531 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Utley provides direct authority for the

A: 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
B: holding that in idaho a bona fide purchaser is one who acquires title to real property without notice actual or constructive of any outstanding adverse rights of another
C: holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser
D: recognizing that chapter 7 trustee as hypothetical bona fide purchaser takes title to the real property free from all equitable liens
C.