Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of disorder or lapsed mentality. Id. Contestants’ evidence surrounds the impropriety of Estha giving family stock to non-family members. Contestants point to inferences that can be drawn from Estha singling out Cook from his other two brothers and the absence of gifts to long-time friends in favor of the charities as more than a scintilla of evidence of undue influence. In spite of these assertions, excluding collateral heirs in favor of charities is not unnatural. See Naihaus v. Feigon, 244 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1951, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (upholding testatrix’s will disposition which left bulk of estate to two synagogues and rabbi to the exclusion of surviving nieces and nephews); In Re Caruthers’ Estate, 151 S.W.2d 946, 948 (Tex. Civ.App.-Beaumont 1941, writ dism’d) . Further, there is a direct connection between
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizingpublic policy favors arbitration
B. recognizing that public policy favors limiting the duration of spousal maintenance to encourage a transition toward independence
C. recognizing this texas rule
D. holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy
E. recognizing that texas public policy favors charitable gifts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.