With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in light of the public policy interest of protecting the best interest of the child); Knights v. Knights, 71 N.Y.2d 865, 527 N.Y.S.2d 748, 749, 522 N.E.2d 1045 (1988) (finding that obligor’s financial hardship resulted solely from his wrongful conduct); Ohler v. Ohler, 220 Neb. 272, 369 N.W.2d 615, 618 (1985) (finding that incarceration is foreseeable result of criminal activity); Noddin v. Noddin, 123 N.H. 73, 455 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1983) (stating that equitable relief will be denied to one who comes to the court with unclean hands). 2. Complete-Justification Rule The jurisdictions that adopt the complete-justification rule follow several lines of reasoning. Some look to the obligor’s intent in committing the crime. See, e.g., Willis v. Willis, 314 Or. 566, 840 P.2d 697, 699 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Still other jurisdictions hold that an

A: holding that modification will be considered if the obligors criminal act was not committed primarily to avoid the support obligation
B: holding that as with a promissory note when the final payment was made on a support judgment the obligation was discharged and after that date husband had no obligation that could support a modification
C: holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest
D: holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order
A.