Susan owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By warranty deed, she conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Ted for a recited consideration of "$10 and other valuable consideration." The deed was promptly and properly recorded. One week later, Susan and Ted executed a written document that stated that the conveyance of Goldacre was for the purpose of establishing a trust for the benefit of Benton, a child of Susan's. Ted expressly accepted the trust and signed the document with Susan. This written agreement was not authenticated to be eligible for recordation and there never was an attempt to record it. Ted entered into possession of Goldacre and distributed the net income from Goldacre to Benton at appropriate intervals. Five years later, Ted conveyed Goldacre in fee simple to Patricia by warranty deed. Patricia paid the fair market value of Goldacre, had no knowledge of the written agreement between Susan and Ted, and entered into possession of Goldacre. Benton made demand upon Patricia for distribution of income at the next usual time Ted would have distributed. Patricia refused. Benton brought an appropriate action against Patricia for a decree requiring her to perform the trust Ted had theretofore recognized. In such action, judgment should be for 
Benton, because a successor in title to the trustee takes title subject to the grantor's trust.  Benton, because equitable interests are not subject to the recording act.  Patricia, because, as a bona fide purchaser, she took free of the trust encumbering Ted's title.  Patricia, because no trust was ever created since Susan had no title at the time of the purported creation. 