Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were not against Deitz personally. Because sanctions were not awarded on those grounds, we remand the case so that the trial court can consider an award of sanctions on these grounds. C. Calculation of Sanctions The appellees’ motion for sanctions was made not against Harris but against Deitz, his client. The first time anyone asked for sanctions against Harris was on the morning of the sanctions hearing when appellees’ counsel, in oral argument, made such a request. A part of the sanctions leveled against Harris was for opposing sanctions. Such an award was improper. It cannot be said that Harris lacked substantial justification in opposing sanctions against his client, Deitz, when he successfully opposed them. See U.S. Health, Inc. v. State, 87 Md.App. 116, 132, 589 A.2d 485 , cert. denied, 324 Md. 69, 595 A.2d 482
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding opposing counsels attorneys fees and expenses as sanctions without affording the sanctioned party the right to examine question or provide argument against the claimed fees and expenses
B. holding attorney fees may be allowed for expenses incurred for default
C. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid
D. holding that rule 1341 does not provide for expenses incurred in asserting the claim for sanctions under the rule except perhaps to the extent that the offending party resists the claim for counsel fees without substantial justification for doing so
E. holding parties agreement provided clear contractual justification for the award of costs and expenses including attorneys fees to the prevailing party
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.