With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The federal regulation now provides, with limited exception, that “registration is conclusive of ownership.” Id. The only listed exception is for correction of registration errors, which are not at issue here. Id. § 353.49. Because there is no dispute that the savings bonds are registered to Flowers’s adult daughters, and because 31 C.F.R. § 353.5(a) controls the question of ownership, the Court of Federal Claims correctly found that the state default judg ment was inapplicable. See also Flowers v. Sec’y of the U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 132 Fed.Appx. 728, 729 (9th Cir.2005) (“Flowers is not the registered owner and cannot, under principles of federal supremacy, rely on a contrary state court judgment to establish ownership.”); Hardymon v. Miller, 718 F.Supp. 723, 725 (S.D.Ind.1989) (<HOLDING>). 2. Shipment of Household Goods The Court of

A: holding that a probate court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding to declare heirship because a court empowered with probate jurisdiction may only exercise its probate jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate when a probate proceeding related to such matters is already pending in that court emphasis added quoting bailey v cherokee cty appraisal dist 862 sw2d 581 585 tex 1993
B: holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine
C: holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case
D: holding that a contrary state court judgment cannot turn solelyowned savings bonds into probate assets in violation of 31 cfr  3535a
D.