Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
lot. Finally, the third paragraph again declares that Tilbury I and Tilbury II are separate lots that could be remodeled or replaced subject to compliance with the current Deed Restrictions’ regulations on matters such as building materials, color, and location relative to the setback lines. Plaintiffs contend the declaratory judgment does not duplicate their preexisting pleadings because, in their view, these declarations deal with future rights. As explained above, however, the declarations focus on present compliance with the Deed Restrictions. Moreover, to the extent these declarations have future operation, they duplicate the relief plaintiffs sought by injunction. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Luxemburg, 93 S.W.3d 410, 425-26 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) . Plaintiffs also cite cases addressing the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act
B. holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief
C. holding plaintiff had no right to recover attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because declarations requested no greater or different relief than claim for injunctive relief for constitutional violation
D. holding attorneys fees waived in lawsuit brought under declaratory judgments act to interpret statute
E. holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.