Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in a contract that did not define the term). By its terms, section XVI prohibits an award of “attorney fees” or “costs and disbursements” to either party in an action for dissolution of their marriage. Husband does not contend that the expert witness fee was an “attorney fee.” Rather, husband argues that the fee was a “cost.” We turn to the meaning of that word as the parties used it in the broader term “costs and disbursements.” The parties do not suggest that the term “costs and disbursements” is ambiguous, nor did they adduce any evidence at trial regarding its intended meaning. However, the term has a well-established legal meaning in the context of the subject matter of section XVI, that is, dissolution actions. See O’Neal and O’Neal, 158 Or App 431, 433-35, 974 P2d 785 (1999) . ORCP 68 A(2) defines “costs and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that orcp 68 defines costs and disbursements for purposes of dissolution actions
B. holding that no distinction exists between investigatory costs and onsite cleanup costs for purposes of recovery
C. holding that even though attorneys fees were not properly awardable under rule 68 costs excluding fees were mandatory
D. holding that costs and disbursements are a procedural element separate from the concept of just compensation under the minnesota constitution
E. holding that fees of witnesses for purposes of orcp 68 a2 means the statutory fee provided by ors 44415
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.