Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and alleging that as a result of Hoffenberg’s pre-existing use, One Harbor acquired an easement by implied reservation and that as a result of continued use by One Harbor and its predecessors in interest, One Harbor acquired an easement by prescription. The trial court specifically found that Hoffenberg took title to each parcel “individually and as trustee,” that no trust or beneficiary was identified in any conveyance of either parcel, and that there was no evidence that a trust relating to either parcel was ever recorded. The trial court applied the provisions of section 687.07, Florida Statutes (1959), and concluded, inter alia, that Hoffenberg was the fee simple “individual” owner of each parcel at the time that the Agreement was executed. The trial court also found that ) . An easement, by definition, is the right to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance
B. recognizing that as long as the lots belonged to the same owner there could be no easement in favor of one lot or servitude upon the other
C. holding that where there is common ownership of two parcels there could be noeasement in favor of one lot operating as a burden to the other
D. recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement
E. holding same as to an easement by implication
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.