Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
available exemptions as measured by the dollar amount of the exemption claim. Thus, “§ 522(f) entitles [the debtor] to avoid [the judgment] lien only to the extent of the ... homestead exemption” irrespective of the debtor’s equity interest in the property. Wrenn, 40 F.3d at 1166-67. Applying Wrenn to the ease before us, the Holloways can avoid John Hancock’s lien on their residence only to the extent of their homestead exemption. Because the Holloways’ claimed exemption was worth $0.00, they are not entitled to any lien avoidance. The Holloways contend that the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 effectively overrules Wrenn, and that a judgment lien can be avoided to the extent that it impairs an exemption or exceeds the amount of equity in the property. See Thomsen, 181 B.R. at 1016-1017 . Although the 1994 amendments to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the bankruptcy reform act effectively overruled wrenn
B. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
C. holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act
D. holding that casey effectively overruled salerno
E. holding that lynch has been effectively overruled by subsequent cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.