Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on this aspect of his appeal. Similarly, Culver merely asserted, without more, that Deborah Culver’s physical possession of the property on the date she filed for bankruptcy is a sufficient interest in property under section 541 to trigger the automatic stay. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Stay Pending Appeal at 6). Whether the debtor has an interest in property is determined by non-bankruptcy law. William L. Norton, Jr., Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 51:5 (2d ed.2002) (citing Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979)). Culver has not identified any body of Maryland law recognizing that a mere possessory interest in property is sufficient to invoke the automatic stay. Cf. In re Ford, 3 B.R. 559, 565 (Bankr.Md.1980), aff'd, 638 F.2d 14 (4th Cir.1981) . Thus, Culver has not met his burden of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property
B. holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property
C. holding that the debtors interest in a broadcasting license constitutes property of the estate
D. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code
E. holding that a debtors interest in a tenancy by the entirety is property of the bankruptcy estate under section 541 because of debtors undivided present interests in the use possession income and right of survivorship of the property
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.