A landowner inherited a parcel of land, free of encumbrances, and promptly recorded his deed. The landowner took out a $100,000 mortgage on the land with a bank to pay for improvements to the property. The instrument was properly recorded. The landowner regularly made the scheduled payments on the mortgage. Subsequently, the landowner decided to further improve the property and took out another mortgage with a financing company for $50,000. The instrument was properly recorded. The landowner then sold the land to a buyer subject to both mortgages.

The buyer procured another loan of $100,000 secured by a mortgage on the land from a lender. The lender knew about the bank's mortgage, but the buyer did not inform her of the financing company's mortgage. The lender lent the money to the buyer on the understanding that the buyer would use the money to pay off the bank's mortgage, placing the lender in first priority. The buyer promptly paid off the bank but made no further payments to the financing company. The financing company initiated steps to foreclose on the land. The lender brings an appropriate action seeking to have her rights declared superior to those of the financing company.

The state in which the land is located has the following statute: "Any conveyance of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded."

If the court rules in the lender's favor, what is the likely reason?

A. The lender could reactivate the first mortgage and step into the shoes of the bank.

B. The balancing of equities clearly favors the lender.

C. The lender lacked actual knowledge of the second mortgage.

D. The lender received no benefit from the financing company, and therefore cannot be burdened by the financing company's demand.