With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". all control over the securities during Decedent’s lifetime. Therefore, on behalf of Decedent, Appellant Mr. Fein initiated an inter vi-vos gift to Appellant Ms. Fein and ultimately to both Appellants. See Sipe’s Estate, supra; Tippins’ Estate, supra. Likewise, when Appellant Mr. Fein used the POA to retitle the Philadelphia property from Decedent’s name only to Decedent and Appellant Ms. Fein as tenants by the entireties, Appellant Mr. Fein purportedly gave Appellant Ms. Fein an interest in the property. To the extent this title was lawful, given that Decedent and Appellant Ms. Fein were not married to each other, the act also constituted an inter vivos gift. See id. See also Estate of Reigle, 438 Pa.Super. 361, 652 A.2d 853, 855 (1995), appeal denied, 542 Pa. 672, 668 A.2d 1135 (1995) (<HOLDING>). These gifts must be deemed “unlimited”

A: holding that husband and wifes failure to recite marital status in the deed did not defeat tenancy by the entirety
B: holding that where deed purports to create tenancy by entireties between two people who are not husband and wife joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created
C: holding a joint tenancy with right of survivorship is created by express language in the granting instrument
D: holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband
B.