Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contest, Johnson’s motion to intervene is not precluded by the three-month statutory period contained in Indiana Code section 29-1-7-18. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions that Johnson et al be named as a plaintiff in this will contest. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. DARDEN, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur. 1 . Morgan also maintains that because Johnson did not address the issue of whether the trial court properly dismissed her Interve-nor’s Complaint as untimely, it is waived. Because this issue is intricately linked with whether Johnson should have been named as a plaintiff to the proceeding rather than a defendant under Indiana Code section 29-1-17-7, we address it. 2 . But see Smith v. Mitchell, 841 N.E.2d 215, 217 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that service of summons was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant city where a copy of the summons and complaint was delivered to a person other than an official named in rule 4j5
B. holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction
C. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons
D. holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
E. holding that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the will contest due to sisters failure to tender a proper summons to interested parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.