Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the cases that court relied on. Chenoweth offered a string cite of cases it relied on in supporting its proposition that the judgment was void or irregular. Further into the opinion, the court states in obvious reference to its string cite that “the final judgment rendered against the garnishee was void or irregular (depending upon which opinion is followed) _” Chenoweth, 342 S.W.2d at 502. Upon reviewing these cases and subsequent ones, we find that Missouri courts have become accustomed to using the terms “void” and “irregular” seemingly interchangeably (Shanks and Butler), or at the very least have failed to draw a meaningful distinction between the two terms in situations similar to the facts of the present case. See, e.g., Roberts v. Meek, 45 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.App.1931) ; Gilbert v. Malan, 231 Mo.App. 469, 100 S.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the judgment premature citing one case holding the judgment void and another holding the judgment irregular
B. holding void judgment must be vacated
C. holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment
D. holding that a default judgment was not void because the bankruptcy court that entered the judgment had proper jurisdiction over the party seeking relief
E. holding that a premature notice of appeal from an interlocutory summary judgment was deemed effective when the trial court granted a severance and rendered the summary judgment final
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.