purchasers/mortgagors under the installment land contract, Mackay and Barbara Williams were equitable title holders of the property as soon as the contract was signed. See id. (also applying the doctrine of equitable conversion); see also Clairton Corp. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 438 Pa. Super. 488, 652 A.2d 916 (1995); Kopanuk v. AVCP Regional Hous. Auth., 902 P.2d 813 (Alaska 1995); Williams v. Dudley Trust Found., 675 A.2d 45 (D.C. Ct. App. 1996); Shay v. Penrose, 25 Ill. 2d 447, 185 N.E.2d 218 (1962); Farmers State Bank v. Neese, 281 Ill. App. 3d 98, 665 N.E.2d 534, 216 Ill. Dec. 474 (1996); Fellmer v. Gruber, 261 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa 1978); Kallenbach v. Lake Publications, Inc., 30 Wis. 2d 647, 142 N.W.2d 212 (1966); see also Harris v. Mason, 120 Tenn. 668, 697, 115 S.W. 1146 (1908) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
holding that equitable title for property is one derived through a valid contract recognizing that the determination is an equitable one holding that the legal title holders to real property held it in constructive trust for the equitable title holder who was entitled to the real property based on an earlier contract holding that a third party holding legal title to property is a necessary party in an action for equitable distribution holding that one who acquires legal title with notice of a prior equitable interest in the property is not a bona fide purchaser