Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is entitled to one-half of that portion ... in this case." Id. at 488-84. 127 Wife concedes that Woodward is the controlling case in Utah regarding how retirement assets are valued and divided, but attempts to distinguish the present case factually because "the overwhelming growth of [Husband's] retirement accounts ... [occurred] during the period of the parties' marriage." Presumably, this is because appreciation of the accounts was greater in the later years. Wife argues that the value of Husband's accounts should be ascertained as of 1993, when the parties married, and the balance exceeding that 1993 value should then be divided between the parties. Woodward, however, made no such distinction, and treats all years of a defined benefit plan as having equal value. See id. at 488  (citation omitted)). The trial court followed
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the trial court awarded the former husband the value of his pension plan but failed to calculate the present value of the plan case must be reversed and remanded for redetermination of equitable distribution
B. recognizing that the fact that a defendant has liability insurance can be established at trial where the issue of ownership is in dispute
C. holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition
D. holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date
E. holding that a fixed system of distribution is applicable where no present value can be established
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.