Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
homestead exemption applies retroactively. See Certification at 2 n.l; cf. In re Pappas, 207 B.R. 379, 381-82 (2d Cir. BAP1997) (discussing disputed question of bankruptcy law suitable for interlocutory review). There is no showing, furthermore, that evaluation of the bankruptcy court’s decision at this time would lead to a more rapid resolution of the case, in part because the decision does not appear to be either manifestly correct or manifestly incorrect. The 2005 amendment to the C.P.L.R. is plausibly remedial within the meaning of McKinney’s Statutes § 54. See In re Little, No. 05-68281, at *21-22. Moreover, it is unlikely that the retroactive application of New York’s homestead exemption would violate the Contracts Clause. Cf. In re Seltzer, 104 F.3d 234, 235-37 (9th Cir.1996) . In sum, we think that prior consideration by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding retroactive application
B. holding that the retroactive application of a nevada exemption did not violate the contracts clause
C. holding that the act is not retroactive
D. recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
E. holding no retroactive application
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.