Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
428, 429 n. 1, 343 S.E.2d 45, 46 n. 1 (Ct.App.1986). 2. Separation Agreements Prior to 1983, the law in South Carolina was unclear as to what specific words were necessary to render a separation agreement enforceable in the family court. In Kelly v. Edwards, 276 S.C. 368, 278 S.E.2d 773 (1981), the supreme court held that an agreement incorporated but not merged in a divorce decree was enforceable only as a contract and that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce it. Thereafter, in Brooks v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 322, 326, 286 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1982), the supreme court concluded the family court properly held a party in contempt for violating a separation agreement that was not merged in the final decree. See also Bryant v. Varat, 278 S.C. 77, 292 S.E.2d 298 (1982) . In 1983, however, the South Carolina Supreme
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court had authority to enforce a marital property settlement agreement that had not been incorporated into the parties final divorce decree
B. holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce
C. holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree
D. holding that the jurisdiction of the divorce court with regard to support and maintenance is statutorily determined unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree
E. holding a motion to revise an enrolled divorce decree because of a discrepancy between the separation agreement and the decree filed more than 5 years after entry of the enrolled decree was properly denied
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.