With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.E.2d at 629 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Sparks v. Peacock, plaintiff husband filed an action in superior court seeking contributions for payments on promissory notes executed by both he and his wife. Unlike the Garrison litigants, however, the parties in Sparks had not brought an action for equitable distribution in district court. Based on the wife’s motion, the superior court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, this Court acknowledged the jurisdictional nature of section 7A-244, stating that if the parties had indeed brought an equitable distribution action and such action was pending pursuant to section 7A-244, the superior court would not have jurisdiction over the propriety of payments on the promissory note. Id. at 641, 500 S.E.2d at 118 (<HOLDING>); see also Ward v. Ward, 116 N.C. App. 643,

A: holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
B: recognizing that defendant correctly stated that the district court has jurisdiction over equitable distribution actions and citing section 7a244
C: holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract
D: holding that personal jurisdiction over partner did not follow from jurisdiction over partnership citing sher
B.