Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
liens on all three tracts. They then brought suit for breach of contract against PSL and foreclosure against Enterprise Bank. The master did not rule on the claims against PSL but entered money judgments against Enterprise Bank. We hold the master had no authority to enter money judgments in the respondents’ foreclosure actions against Enterprise Bank. The procedures for enforcing a mechanic’s lien are provided by statute, see S.C.Code Ann. §§ 29-5-10 to -440 (2007 & Supp.2013), and “must be strictly followed.” Cohen’s Drywall Co. v. Sea Spray Homes, LLC, 374 S.C. 195, 199, 648 S.E.2d 598, 600 (2007). A court cannot depart from the plain language of the statute when enforcing a mechanic’s lien. See Zepsa Constr., Inc v. Randazzo, 357 S.C. 32, 38, 591 S.E.2d 29, 32 (Ct.App.2004) ; Shelley Constr. Co. v. Sea Garden Homes,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a party was limited to recovery provided for by the strict terms of the mechanics lien statute
B. holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond
C. recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived
D. holding that recovery is limited to actual compensatory damages
E. holding that the phrase provided by law means prescribed or provided by statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.