With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agreed contract provides a clear and specific right of subrogation.” Id. at 651. As we indicated in Fortis Benefits, equitable doctrines conform to contractual and statutory mandates, not vice versa. Id. at 648. We further clarified that “contract-based sub-rogation rights should be governed by the parties’ express agreement and not invalidated by equitable considerations that might control by default in the absence of an agreement.” Id. at 650. Fortis Benefits eliminated the basis for the trial court’s judgment in this case, as Ortiz dealt with equitable subrogation, not, as here, contractual subrogation. Nonetheless, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, appearing to rely in part on the “made whole” doctrine but without expressly claiming to. 315 S.W.3d at 70 (<HOLDING>). Under Fortis Benefits, the “made whole”

A: holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife
B: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion since there were not enough settlement funds to compensate sigmundiks wife and sons and thus in the words of sigmundiks wife there is nothing left for the estate alteration in original
C: holding trial court erred in finding purported wife unavailable to testify and admitting her sworn prior statements in lieu of her live testimony where record did not support courts ruling in light of its own finding that remarriage of wife and defendant was fraudulent and wife did not refuse to testify if claim of privilege was denied
D: holding that because the wife failed to present any evidence as to the legal services performed in the trial court the wife was not entitled to a second hearing to establish attorneys fees
B.