Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
did not err in concluding that Tenala had failed to carry its burden to show adverse possession of the disputed strip after 1984. C. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Holding that Mayo Adversely Possessed a Portion of the Northern End of Lot 5D, but Erroneously Determined the South Boundary Line of the Mayo Lot. Tenala does not dispute that the Ma-yos’ physical encroachments and use of the northern end of Lot 5D possess the requisite characteristics for acquiring a fee simple estate; Tenala argues instead that the better public policy would be to award an easement. Tenala’s arguments are contrary to the existing law, which holds that fee simple title is acquired if all of the required elements of adverse possession are met. See, e.g., Hubbard v. Curtiss, 684 P.2d 842, 849 (Alaska 1984) . The law has long recognized adverse
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that   1635f completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3year period
B. holding that title automatically vests in the adverse possessor at the end of the statutory period if all the requirements are met
C. holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end
D. recognizing that insurance policy may lapse if the statutory renewal notice requirements are met
E. holding that even if statutory requirements are met courts must inquire into totality of the circumstances to determine if waiver was knowing and voluntary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.