With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Robinson, 533 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Mo.App.1975). Here, the trial court’s judgment in favor of Mazurkiewicz was based on the weakness of the Kempers’ title, as the trial court stated Plaintiff has the superior title based upon the chain of title as presented in evidence as to that certain one-acre tract described in Defendant’s Exhibit B herein. Appellant’s claim to title starts from a tax deed and traces back the “Babb deed” as the originating deed but provides no confirming evidence of Babb’s title to convey. According to the trial court, Mazur-kiewicz prevailed because of a deficiency in Kempers’ title, their inability to trace “back” from the Babb deed, and not due to the strength of Mazurkiewicz’s own title. Trailwoods Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Scott, 938 S.W.2d 669, 670 (Mo.App.E.D.1997)(<HOLDING>). Mazurkiewicz presented no evidence to defeat

A: holding that the party challenging a tax deed has the burden to prove its invalidity
B: holding that a defendant may challenge the validity of prior convictions during a sentencing hearing and that the burden to establish invalidity is on the challenging party
C: holding that the party seeking to vacate the award has the burden of providing the court with the evidence to support its arguments
D: holding that the taxpayer has the burden to prove the governments tax assessment is incorrect
A.