With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As indicated by the appraisal, a straight division of the property into an equal number of acres does not result in equal shares because the land consists of riverfront, tillable, and untillable property, all with differing values and desirability. Given that the property is unevenly bisected by a river, the difference in the value of tillable and untillable land, the fact that the current best use was farming even though some of the land is untillable, and the fact that future use could include residential development or sand and gravel mining, the trial court determined that there appeared to be no reasonable way to divide the land into four equal parcels as the trust requires. We find no clear error in this determination. See Burns v Ambler, 302 Mich 526, 528-529; 5 NW2d 451 (1942) (<HOLDING>); Fortney v Tope, 262 Mich 593, 600; 247 NW 751

A: holding that depreciation in land value caused by a material change in a highway grade which made access to the property difficult is compensable
B: holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties
C: holding that sale was appropriate where dividing the property among six parties was difficult because the nature of the land made it impossible to divide it into six equal parcels and the land likely had more value sold as a whole
D: holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land
C.