Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provides protection against prior encumbrances created by Crescent. To hold otherwise allegedly would render it a quitclaim deed. A special warranty binds the grantor and the grantor’s heirs. See Knotts, 217 S.C. 99, 102, 59 S.E.2d 850, 851 (1950). However, “[t]he grantor can, and often does, limit [covenants] so as to exclude existing encumbrances.” G.W. Thompson, Thompson on Real Property § 82.10(c)(3) (Supp. 2005); see § 27-7-20; see also Steele v. McRaney, 855 So.2d 1114, 1122-23 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (finding language grantee would take “subject to” matters a survey or inspection of the property would have uncovered prevented grantee from prevailing in breach of deed covenant claim); Kamenar R.R. Salvage, Inc. v. Ohio Edison Co., 79 Ohio App.3d 685, 607 N.E.2d 1108, 1113 (1992) . Here, exceptions (5) and (6) in the habendum
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding when a deed provides grantee would take subject to the state of facts which a personal inspection or accurate survey would disclose grantee has no claim against grantor for power line easement
B. holding that promissory estoppel existed when the grantor agreed to use the property for only residential purposes took title with knowledge of that promise and the grantee relied upon that agreement
C. holding that deed was valid when the deed was conveyed to grantee corporation which formally incorporated after the conveyance
D. recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement
E. holding that where grantee was named as trustee without identification of the beneficiaries or the nature and purposes of the trust and no trust agreement of record was identified the grantee received fee simple title
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.