With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". W.Va. 844, 229 S.E.2d 732, 736 (1976), overruled, on other grounds by O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W.Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010). “It has long been recognized that an easement by necessity is appurtenant.... What this means in practice is that the right to an easement of necessity does not expire or attach itself to a particular owner....” William C. Haak Trust, 949 N.E.2d at 837. Given the appurtenant nature of a way of necessity, and that the duration of an easement of necessity is limited by that necessity, it is recognized that “a claim for an easement by necessity is not subject to a statute of limitations.” Carroll, 355 S.W.3d at 468; see also William C. Haak Trust, 949 N.E.2d at 837 (“[T]here is no statute of limitations on easements of necessity. ...”); Attaway, 707 S.W.2d at 303 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Lichty, 149 Cal.App.3d at

A: holding that it is not
B: holding it is not appropriate to fix a limitations period on actions to establish easements by necessity because the right to access arises from an owners status as a landlocked owner and is of a continuing nature 
C: holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises
D: holding that because the necessity defense requires a defendant to turn himself in escape is a continuing offense
B.