Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
QDRO. 2004 ND 58, ¶ 9, 676 N.W.2d 794. We explained the trial court correctly found the former husband in contempt for willfully violating the divorce judgment by receiving and 0 (stating trial court should take all reasonable measures to ensure that QDROs are drafted and entered as soon as possible after entry of the divorce decree). Thus, the trial court erred by shifting the responsibility for obtaining a QDRO from the trial court that entered the 1993 divorce decree to Mary Blomdahl, a party to the decree. Further, under ERISA, there is no statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO. See Jordan, 147 S.W.3d at 260 (noting the intentional absence of a statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO under ERISA); see also Marshall v. Priess, 99 S.W.3d 150, 157 (Tex.Ct.App.2002) ; Ochoa v. Ochoa, 71 S.W.3d 593, 596-97
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
B. holding a statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived
C. holding the entry of qdro is not subject to statute of limitations on enforcement of judgments
D. holding that the statute of limitations defense does not deprive court of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent the statute of limitations may be considered in any sense a jurisdictional impediment it is one which can be waived
E. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.