Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
neither did Mr. Bowen. ¶ 30. Bowen does not require an independent action seeking partition. Mr. Myers already had a request for a sale properly before the chancellor. A remand in order to obtain another is superfluous. ¶ 31. Additionally, the majority suggests that to enforce a partition here would subvert longstanding public policy encouraging marriage. I do not find that the public policy arguments in favor of marriage impact on whether a spouse may seek the partition by sale of a financially burdensome marital home. Joint owners of property, even spouses not contemplating divorce, are entitled to seek partition of property. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-21-8 (Supp.2002), Trigg v. Trigg, 498 So.2d 334, 335-36 (Miss.1986). See also Miller v. Miller, 838 So.2d 295, 298 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) . ¶32. Trigg and Miller speak to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action
B. holding that denial of divorce and corresponding equitable distribution does not preclude a partition action by res judicata
C. holding res judicata does not preclude consideration of constitutional questions in postconviction proceedings which by their nature depended upon facts not found in record
D. holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity
E. holding that a criminal statute does not provide a corresponding civil cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.