Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in Greaves met the requirements of effective service by having an alias summons issued before they made their second attempt at process, an action Miller & Custom failed to take. Thus, Miller & Custom’s first attempt at service failed because notice was not sent to the Debtor’s attorney. Their second effort by personal service was not attempted until long after the 10 day period after the summons was issued, in violation of the mandate of the last sentence of Bankruptcy Rule 7004(f). Thus, at best, Miller & Custom contend that proper in person-am jurisdiction over the Debtor is deriv ervice of process is defective, any default judgment is void because the court had no jurisdiction over the parties. Kaczmarczik v. Van Meter (In re Van Meter), 175 B.R. 64, 67 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) ; Cossio v. Cate (In re Cossio), 163 B.R. 150,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons
B. recognizing that a default judgment based on improper service is void
C. holding that a motion to modify a divorce decree was filed for purposes of rule 5105 when summons was issued
D. holding that default judgment could not be rendered after the defendant had served plaintiff with a copy of a motion to dismiss that had not then been filed
E. holding that failure to serve debtors with filed complaint and issued summons rendered default judgment void
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.