Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
arising out of the lessee’s failure to satisfy its financial obligations for services rendered on the leased premises. If, as appellant argues, a lessor could avoid liability simply by disclaiming liability in the lease without including such a disclaimer in the recorded short form, the purpose behind section 713.10(1) would be frustrated. Furthermore, section 713.10(2), which mandates that a notice regarding multiple leases on a parcel of land include the specific language contained in the various leases prohibiting a lessor’s liability, supports our interpretation of section 713.10(1). In other words, if a lessor desires to protect its interest from mechanics’ liens arising out of improvements made by a lessee, the document that is recorded in the clerk’ , 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) ; Budget Elec. Co. v. Strauss, 417 So.2d 1143,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the appellant contractor failed to prove the existence of a lease provision requiring the lessee to make the improvements at issue which could have the effect of subjecting the lessors property to a lien
B. holding that the mere fact that the parties to a lease may contemplate that the lessee will make improvements to the property is insufficient to subject the lessors interests to mechanics liens and that the lease must instead expressly or impliedly require the requirements to be made
C. holding that a lienor under a contract with a lessee is entitled to a lien against the lessors interest only where the lease expressly or impliedly requires the lessee to make improvements to the leased property
D. holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease
E. holding that the lease at issue which set forth that the tenant may at its own expense make alterations and improvements did not require the lessee to make the improvements and that the alterations and improvements did not constitute the pith of the lease
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.