which provides that a trustee enjoys the status of a bona fide purchaser without actual knowledge of any outstanding claim, lien or equity, without regard to the actual knowledge or notice of any actual creditor or trustee. In re Chateau Royale, 6 B.R. 8, 10 (Bank.N.D.Fla.1980); Crestar Bank v. Neal (In re Kitchin Equip. Co. of Virginia, Inc.), 960 F.2d 1242, 1245 (4th Cir.1992). As noted above, Trustee argues that since the Bankruptcy Code has a detailed section regarding sub-rogation, the state law of subrogation is not applicable. However, the extent of a trustee’s rights as a bona fide purchaser is a matter of state property law. Am. Indus. Leasing Co. v. Searles (In re Ludlum Enters., Inc.), 510 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.1975). See Havee v. Belk, 775 F.2d 1209, 1218 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), (cited in SunTrust Bank v. Macky, 669 F.8d
holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law holding that the standard of review for the denial of rule 11 sanctions is governed by the law of the regional circuit holding that pennsylvania law determined the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 usc  544a1 holding that while 11 usc  544 gives the trustee the status of a hypothetical lien creditor the exercise of such power and its extent are governed entirely by state law holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law