Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or otherwise, and no disposition, charge, encumbrance, sale or assignment of the income or of the principal of this trust or any part hereof by any beneficiary hereunder shall be of any validity or legal effect or in any way recognized by said TRUSTEE.” Because of the provisions of this classic spendthrift clause, neither Neal’s creditors nor transferees had any right to rely upon the Trust for the satisfaction of their claims. Johnson v. Morawitz, 292 F.2d 341, 344 (1961), citing In re Watts, 160 Kan. 377, 162 P.2d 82, and Sherman v. Havens, 94 Kan. at 657, 146 P. 1030. Cf. Connett v. Justus Enterprises of Kansas, Inc., 1989 WL 65444, *7 (D.Kan.1989) (discussing the inalienability of interests in spendthrift trusts in Kans .1994), rev’d on other grounds 115 F.3d 333 (5th Cir.1997), . Cf. Klebanoff v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 362
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court is constrained to give a narrow construction to the words bequest devise and inheritance and to conclude such words do not encompass revocable inter vivos trusts
B. holding that ijnter vivos trust distributions are not considered interest obtained by bequest devise or inheritance 
C. holding that inter vivos trusts are not considered interest obtained by bequest devise or inheritance
D. holding that payments made to a debtor from inter vivos trusts within 180 days of filing the petition are not interests by way of bequest devise or inheritance and are not part of the bankruptcy estate
E. holding that distributions from an inter vivos trust do not qualify as bequests and  541a5a does not operate to bring such distributions into the bankruptcy estate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.