Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the acquisition of a new claim of homestead defeats and discharges a previously-filed claim of homestead. The court agreed with Citizens, holding that the plain language of § 2 meant that Garran’s § 1A declaration and corresponding homestead exemption was defeated and discharged by his wife’s subsequent § 1 declaration. We agree that this is the proper reading of the statutory language. Garran’s wife filed a declaration of homestead under § 1 on February 21, 2001. The declaration of homestead under § 1 is an acquisition of a homestead “for the benefit of [the] family.” Id. § 1. Therefore, by his wife’s filing of a § 1 declaration, Garran, as her spouse and member of her family, “acquired” a homestead on February 21, 2001. See In re Roberts, 280 B.R. 540, 547 (Bankr.D.Mass.2001) . Section 2 states that “the acquisition of a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations
B. holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places
C. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
D. recognizing that the eighth amendment protects individuals from a lingering death
E. recognizing that a declaration filed under subsection 1 protects even the nonfiling debtor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.