With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that plaintiff, as a personal representative, lacks standing to assert the statute's bar. As decedent's personal representative, plaintiff stands in decedent's shoes. Espinoza v. O'Dell, 633 P.2d 455, 466 (Colo.1981) ("[the personal representative of the decedent's estate, by necessity, stands in the decedent's shoes" in prosecuting an action on behalf of the decedent). Under the former statute, the supreme court consistently recognized the standing of personal representatives who sued or were sued in their representative capacity. See Oswald v. Dawn, 148 Colo. 487, 494, 354 P.2d 505, 509 (1960) (former statute barred testimony by former partner of decedent in suit brought by ad-ministratrix to recover diverted partnership funds); Risbry v. Swan, 124 Colo. 567, 239 P.2d 600 (1951) (<HOLDING>); Faden v. Estate of Midcap, 112 Colo. 573,

A: holding that title to land vests in decedents heirs not in his administrator
B: recognizing rule
C: recognizing general rule but holding it did not apply where an administrator was named as a nominal defendant in a suit litigating conflicting claims among heirs
D: recognizing this as the general rule
C.