Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
19, are preemptive. See supra ¶¶ 19-21. T39 Contrary to the majority's view, these definitions are not preemptive because the doctrine of equitable adoption is not premised on our ability to judicially define the statutory term "child" or "parent." The version of the probate code in effect when Williams' Estates was decided provided for intestate succession by a decedent's "child" or "issue." Utax CopE § 74-4-5(1)-(2) (1958). We did not reach our holding in Williams' Estates by judicially defining these statutory terms, as the majority suggests. See supra ¶ 20. Instead, w 638, 645 (N.M.Ct.App.1985) (applying the equitable rule "authoriz[ing] an award of attorney fees for services rendered which confer a benefit upon the estate"); In re Estate of O'Keefe, 583 N.W.2d 138, 140 (S.D.1998) ; see also In re Estate of Wagley, 760 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms
B. holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus
C. holding that the cireuit court had the equitable authority to partially disqualify a beneficiary from inheriting from an estate because of his fraudulent acts
D. holding single coexecutors release of mortgage debt paid to estate was valid and binding on estate because acts of any coexecutor in respect to the administration of the effects of the estate are deemed to be the acts of all as where one releases a debt or settles an account of a person with the deceased or surrenders a term or sells the goods and chattels of the estate his act binds the others characterizing conversion of decedents personal property into cash as act in due course of administration of estate
E. holding that a contract beneficiary may be liable in restitution where the beneficiary by his conduct induces the conferral of the benefit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.