Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
who did not preside over a trial announce fact findings gives rise to practical concerns that do not arise if the same judge files legal conclusions. See, e.g., Storrie v. Shaw, 96 Tex. 618, 75 S.W. 20, 21-22 (1903) (noting that it "would be impossible for a judge who had not heard the testimony to express in the form of conclusions of fact the impression which the conflicting evidence made upon the mind of one who heard it”). We are concerned in this case only with findings of fact—which we sometimes refer to simply as "findings”—and express n Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1976, no writ) (relying in part on rule 18 to hold that a successor to a deceased judge was allowed to file findings); Horizon Prop. Corp. v. Martinez, 513 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) . 7 . While the rules create a deadline for the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that neither rule 18 nor section 30002 allowed the successor to an electoral loser to file findings when the transition did not happen during the period in which the trial court was obligated to file findings
B. holding that rule 18 grants authority to some successor judges to file findings
C. holding that rule 18 granted a successor to a deceased judge the power to file findings
D. holding that rule 18 granted a successor to a resigned judge the power to file findings when a case was transferred between districts
E. holding that not even the successor to a retiring judge may file findings because retirement is not listed in rule 18 and has a statutorily distinct meaning from resignation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.