With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Keller Heirs sufficiently preserved this issue through their challenge to the applicability of the 1935 tax sale, given that we ultimately conclude that the Keller Heirs’ argument fails on the merits. We do not address whether the Keller Heirs should have raised their due process issue as an affirmative defense, as suggested by the dissent, given that no party has presented that argument to this Court. 17 . We recognize that a dispute exists whether Mullane and Mennonite should be applied retroactively to tax sales occurring decades ago, especially in cases involving provisions similar to the two-year period in the Act of 1815 for challenging procedural aspects of tax sales. See Quantum Resources Management, L.L.C. v. Pirate Lake Oil Corp., 112 So.3d 209, 215-217 (La.2013) (<HOLDING>). As we find the notice by publication was

A: holding retroactive application
B: recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary
C: recognizing divergence of opinion on nonevidentiary use of immunized testimony
D: recognizing a divergence of opinion regarding the retroactive application of mennonite
D.