With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2004 MT 326, ¶ 14, 324 Mont. 114, ¶ 14, 102 P.3d 16, ¶ 14 (citations omitted), Alvin argues that Steinbeisser, at ¶ 47, entitles the non-acquiring spouse to an equitable share of “only that portion of gifted property that appreciated in value because of his or her efforts. However, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that “[i]n determining the exact distribution of an asset acquired by gift or bequest during the marriage, no set formula can be established as to how the assets should be equitably distributed.” In re Marriage of Herrera, 2004 MT 40, ¶ 32, 320 Mont. 71, ¶ 32, 85 P.3d 781, ¶ 32 (citing Herron, 186 Mont. at 402, 608 P.2d at 100) (see also Morse v. Morse, 174 Mont. 541, 546, 571 P.2d 1147, 1150 (1977)); Biegalke v. Biegalke, 172 Mont. 311, 315, 564 P.2d 987, 989 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Each case has to be decided on its own

A: holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted
B: holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances
C: holding that the courts exercise of its discretion in adjusting property rights between husband and wife must be reasonable under the circumstances of the case and there is no fixed formula or ratio to be applied in each instance
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
C.