Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
accompanied by fraud or other inequitable conduct of the remaining parties. Mullin v. Eaton, 19 A. 371, 372 (N.H. 1889) erefore, qualitatively different from an action challenging title. Compare McCormick, 37 A.3d at 298 (explaining that covenant of warranty is a promise to defend lawful claims by third persons), with Bourne, 540 A.2d at 361 (stating that reformation is limited to the original parties and their successors in title). Consequently, we hold that RSA 477:27 does not authorize attorney’s fees for an action seeking reformation of a deed. See Anderson v. Selby, 700 N.W.2d 696, 702 (N.D. 2005) (declining to award attorney’s fees under warranty deed in reformation action by grantor); see also Civic Realty, Inc. v. Development, Inc., 641 P.2d 1361, 1362-63 (Haw. Ct. App. 1982) . Here, the petitioners asserted that, by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing this distinction
B. recognizing distinction between smith and mcdonnell
C. recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel
D. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver
E. recognizing distinction between attack on title by third party and complaint alleging mutual mistake in deed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.