Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
requires that the property be acquired in joint names of husband and wife.”) (quoting Fratangelo v. Fratangelo, 360 Pa.Super. 487, 498, 520 A.2d 1195, 1201 (Pa.Super.Ct.1987)); Augello v. United States, No. 1:92-CV-697, 1993 WL 330472, at *3 (M.D. Pa. June 4, 1993) (“Under Pennsylvania law, a tenancy by the entirety is a special form of co-ownership that arises between husband and wife when property is placed in the name of both spouses.”); United States v. Cusumano, No. 90-00091-01, 1991 WL 274835, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 18, 1991) (“Property acquired in the names of both husband and wife is presumed to be held by the entireties, and the placing of property in the names of both spouses, without more, creates an entirety estate.”); Raffaele v. Granger, 100 F.Supp. 390, 391 (W.D.Pa.1951) , aff'd, 196 F.2d 620 (3d Cir.1952). The
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety cannot be reached by husbands creditors absent fraud
B. holding that bank accounts in husbands and wifes joint names were property in a tenancy by the entirety
C. holding that husband and wifes failure to recite marital status in the deed did not defeat tenancy by the entirety
D. holding that contents of joint bank accounts which had been withdrawn in their entirety by one of cotenant without consent of the other eotenant were sufficiently identifiable to be the subject of a claim for conversion
E. holding that where bank account titled in the names of two married persons a presumption arises that both hold the funds in the account as a tenancy by the entirety
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.