Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
order, or judgment, or more than two years after the date a disability is removed); see also Tex. Estates Code §§ 55.251, 202.203, 1056.101; cf. id. § 256.204 (limiting will contest to two years or two years after discovering fraud or forgery). These express references to statutes of limitations for bills of review reflect legislative concern for the orderly administration of estates and finality of judgments and are consistent with the “strong public interest in according finality to probate proceedings,” which has been afforded great weight in our precedent. Little, 943 S.W.2d at 418-21 (concluding that the discovery rule does not apply to adoptees’ belated inheritance claims despite the inherent difficulty of promptly asserting such claims); see Frost Nat’l Bank, 315 S.W.3d at 497 . Construing section 31 as prescribing a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the discovery rule does not apply to  bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments
B. holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case
C. holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions
D. holding that probate exception does not apply where plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty seek in personam jurisdiction over defendants and do not seek to probate or annul a will
E. holding rule does not apply to satisfied conciliationcourt judgments
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.