Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
immediate vesting of such rights in the donee.”). Until the donor has absolutely and irrevocably divested herself of the title, dominion, and control of the subject of the gift, she has the power to revoke the gift. Edwards, 38 S.W.3d at 197; see also Troxel, 201 S.W.3d at 296 (“All dominion and control over the property must be released by the owner.”). The donee does not have ownership of the subject of the gift until complete ownership has been transferred from the donor to the donee. Edwards, 38 S.W.3d at 197. An inter vivos gift must be absolute and not open for future reconsideration. Soto v. First Gibraltar Bank, FSB San Antonio, 868 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, writ ref'd); see also Dorman v. Arnold, 932 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no writ) ; Woodworth v. Cortez, 660 S.W.2d 561, 564
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that as matter of law present donative intent not shown because donor intended for property to remain his until his death
B. holding that the doctrine of ademption seeks to give effect to a testators probable intent by presuming he intended to extinguish a specific gift of property when he disposed of that property prior to his death
C. holding the respondent  implicitly exercised his right to withdraw his voluntary departure request and instead  elected to remain to pursue his motion
D. holding that the district court did not err as a matter of law in issuing a discovery order because a death row habeas petitioner had shown good cause for seeking discovery
E. holding that the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel because his statement i wanna call my lawyer when read in context did not represent a request to terminate the interrogation until his counsel was present
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.