Florida law requires an interest in real property to be recorded to prevent any creditors or subsequent purchasers from obtaining or recovering against the real property. See, e.g., In re Abrass, 268 B.R. 665 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2001) (under Florida law, transfer of permanent interest in real property is not enforceable against creditors unless conveyance is properly recorded); In re Shannis, 229 B.R. 234 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999) (pre-petition transfer of real estate to Debtors' son was not effective until recording of deed, and is subject to Trustee's powers); In re Levy, 185 B.R. 378 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1985) (unrecorded deed or interest is invalid against interests of subsequent bona fide purchaser); In re May, 19 B.R. 655 (N.D. Fla. 1982) (trustee as hypothetical judgment lien creditor on petition date became part owner of leasehold interest in real property mistakenly titled/deeded in name of debtor and partnership). In Florida, an interest in real property must be reflected in the public records of the county in which it is located.

Meadowbrook Farm Apartments v. Carter, 67 Misc.2d 1093, 326 N YS.2d 281 (1971); Heiman v. Parnass, 40 F.2d 558, 559 (E.D.N.Y. 1930); Savings and Loan Association of Kingston v. Berberich, 24 A.D.2d 187, 264 N.Y.S.2d 989 (1965); Saidel v. Brenner, 44 Misc.2d 60, 252 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1964); Rich v. McCarthy, 198 Misc. 347, 98 N.Y.S.2d 638 (1950); Blum v. Krampner, 28 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup.Ct. 1940); Fox v. Sizeland, 170 Misc. 390, 9 N.Y.S.2d 350 (1938). Compare In re May, 19 B.R. 655 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Fla. 1982); In re Jeff Benny Anderson, 30 B.R. 995 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1983).

6. Savarese has also been followed. In Growth Properties of Florida v. Brown (In re May), 19 B.R. 655 (N.D. Fla. 1982), the District Court followed Savarese in a case also involving a mistake: a deed may be reformed against a judicial lien creditor, even one without notice, who fails to rely on the record. Id. at 657.

Plaintiff asserts, however, that Section 695.01(1) does not govern this matter because a judgment lien cannot attach to property of which the debtor holds only bare legal title. See Miller v. Berry, 78 Fla. 98, 82 So. 764 (1919); National Bank of Arcadia v. Savarese, 101 Fla. 480, 134 So. 501 (1931); Laganke v. Sutter, 137 Fla. 71, 187 So. 586 (1939); Arundel Debenture Corp. v. LeBlond, 139 Fla. 668, 190 So. 765 (Fla. 1939); and In re May, 19 B.R. 655 (D.C.N.D.Fla. 1982). There has been no division of legal and beneficial title in this matter.

In re Butz, 1 B.R. 435, 437 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Pa. 1979). See also In re May, 19 B.R. 655 (N.D.Fla. 1982); In re Hastings, 4 B.R. 292 (Bkrtcy.D.Minn. 1980); In re Fisher, 7 B.R. 490, 495 (W.D.Pa. 1980).

Moreover, even if reliance was necessary before a creditor may seek the benefit of § 2980.5, Black and White as the debtor-in-possession may hypothesize such reliance on the misleading record notwithstanding the existence of the brands. In re May, 19 B.R. 655, 659 (D.C.N.D.Fla. 1982). We therefore reject Shamrock's limited construction of Cal.Civ. Code § 2980.5.