With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". prevailed in the trial proceedings, if this Court were to reverse on appeal, we would have to vacate the attorney’s fees orders, and any judicial resources spent resolving those motions would ultimately have been wasted. See In re Reynolds, 60 V.I. 330, 336-37 (V.I. 2013) (stressing the importance of promoting judicial economy in Superior Court proceedings). But in this case, we affirm the Superior Court’s order ruling in favor of the Heirs of George and Wilmar Corporation on Mahabir’s adverse possession claim. So while in the past this Court has vacated Superior Court orders ruling on unripe attorney’s fees motions where they were “also not ripe at the appellate level,” V.I. Gov’t Hosps., 50 V.I. at 281, the attorney’s fees motions in this case are now ripe. Ottley, 61 V.I. at 496-97 (<HOLDING>) (citing Rohn v. People, 57 V.I. 637, 642 n.4

A: holding that a plaintiff cannot rely on factual events that take place subsequent to a banks closure to support its claimed ownership of escrow funds
B: holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings
C: holding that there was appellate jurisdiction under principle that a premature notice of appeal from a nonfinal order may ripen into a valid notice of appeal if a final judgment has been entered by the time the appeal is heard and the appellee suffers no prejudice
D: holding that subsequent events may ripen otherwise premature court proceedings
D.