In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: the entirety ... to the extent that such interest as a tenant by the entirety ... is exempt from process under applicable nonbankruptcy law." 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(B). a. Applicable Nonbankruptcy Law for Entirety Property Exemption To determine whether the Condominium is exempt from process, the court will look to the law of the situs of the real property. In this case that is Florida. "Under Florida law, entireties property is exempt from process to satisfy debts owed to individual creditors of either spouse. Entireties property is not exempt from process to satisfy the joint debts of both spouses." See In re Monzon, 214 B.R. 38, 40-41 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1997) (citing Neu v. Andrews, 528 So.2d 1278, 1279 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) and Stanley v. Powers, 123 Fla. 359, 166 So. 843, 846 (1936) (<HOLDING>)). "Courts have generally recognized that
Holding statements: (A) holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate (B) holding that an increase in the value of nonmarital property attributable to the efforts of one or both spouses during marriage is marital property (C) holding that a judgment debt against both spouses can be satisfied by selling the entireties property (D) holding that the irs may reach half of a nonliable spouses sole management community property to satisfy a liable spouses tax debt (E) holding that where one spouses arson destroyed the house which both spouses owned as tenants by the entireties the innocent spouse was entitled to recover under their fire insurance policy for her share of the loss
[A]: holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate

[Q]: note that, contrary to Kooby and EHI's assertion, the trial court is not required to hold a hearing on this m 2d 814) (1991) (same). 10 Rogers v. Norris, 262 Ga. App. 857, 857 (1) (586 SE2d 747) (2003) ("Although we review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, 'the trial court must make findings on these issues before we may determine whether its discretion was abused.' " (quoting Ga. Dep't of Human Res. v. Patillo, 194 Ga. App. 279, 279 (390 SE2d 431) (1990))); see also Wood v. Notte, 238 Ga. App. 748, 749 (1) (519 SE2d 923) (1999) (same); Crenshaw, 202 Ga. App. at 611 (1) (same). 11 See Rogers, 262 Ga. App. at 857 (1) ("Failure to make [findings of fact] mandates that we vacate the order dismissing the appeal and remand the case Ga. App. 40, 43 (555 SE2d 508) (2001) (<HOLDING>); A. Roberts Corp. v. Roberts, 207 Ga. App.
Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it (B) holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal (C) holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case (D) holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion (E) holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact
[A]: holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it

[Q]: section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), requires the circuit court to "[slpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents." Here, the court's order specifies that K.B. shall have a minimum of one hour per week supervised visitation, with additional visitation at the permanent guardian's' discretion. The order also gives the guardian discretion to permit unsupervised visitation upon determining that KB. has achieved the sobriety and stability necessary to keep the child safe. However, it does not leave the frequency and nature of visitation to the guardian's complete discretion. Therefore, the order comports with section 39.6221(2)(c). Cf. S.W-R. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and
Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing (B) holding an upward departure under ussg 5k22 was not error or an abuse of discretion where the victim suffered permanent and lifethreatening injuries (C) holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order (D) holding the permanent guardianship order that provided for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half or at the discretion of the caregiver did not comply with section 3962212c because it placed complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the permanent guardian (E) holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse
[A]:
holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing