Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
homestead exemption, even though the title of the property is held by a revocable trust. In the case at hand, Mary is the trustee and one of the beneficiaries of the Mary D. Fitton Revocable Trust. She is also the person who formed the trust. The property in question is her principal place of residence. She was married at all times pertinent to the mortgage and conveyances at issue. Relying on the reasoning in Richardson, and case law from this court relied upon therein, we hold that, according to the facts presented, Mary Fitton was entitled to a homestead exemption even though the title to the property was held by her trust. Furthermore, the fact that the trust holds the property as a tenant in common does not affect the outcome. See Simpson v. Biffle, 63 Ark. 289, 38 S.W. 345 (1896) . As for the Bank of Little Rock’s argument
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a husband first acquired property and then conveyed it to his wife they could not hold the property as tenants by the entirety or joint tenants because the four unities did not coincide so the deed created a tenancy in common with a right of survivorship
B. holding that the property held by the revocable trust in which the trustee was the beneficiary and the property was his permanent residence was a constitutionally protected homestead property
C. holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead
D. holding that marital property was not attachable for the sole debts of the husband because it was held in tenancy by entirety
E. holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.