Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the complaint. Gregorian, 871 F.2d at 1523; Pena, 770 F.2d at 815. Hammer contends that he first learned of the complaint approximately two years after it was filed. The bankruptcy court concluded that appellees effected service when they sent, by first class mail, a summons and complaint to Hammer at the address listed on his bankruptcy petition. Service in this fashion is expressly authorized by Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(9). Hammer initiated these proceedings by filing his petition, and it was his responsibility to apprise the bankruptcy court of his forwarding address. See Pena, 770 F.2d at 815 (affirming default judgment where defendant foreign corporation failed to provide correct address to state licensing authority); see also In re Muzquiz, 122 B.R. 56, 59 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Tex.1990) . Hammer was properly served under the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that rule 415f worked to cure deficiencies in service of process in action to enforce a judgment lien on real estate where service was provided at debtors last residential address known to lienholder because address was used during underlying lawsuit lienholders attorney checked county record to verify address information debtor did receive summons and residential address was on the former situs of debtors business
B. holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there
C. holding trial court abused its discretion by not extending the time for service where the statute of limitations had run and where service had been achieved at the time of the hearing on the motion to dismiss
D. holding service not defective where debtor had failed to notify court of his new address
E. holding service of process defective when the return receipt is not signed by the addressee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.