With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Several of these rulings have involved the question of whether a trust relationship may serve to divest a local church of control of its property. See, e.g., Bishop and Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, Colo.Supr., 716 P.2d 85, 96, 103-09, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 826, 107 S.Ct. 102, 93 L.Ed.2d 52 (1986) (applying neutral principles of law approach in determination of trust for benefit of the general church); Babcock Memorial Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Baltimore of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States, Md.Ct.App., 296 Md. 573, 464 A.2d 1008, 1016-17 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1027, 104 S.Ct. 1287, 79 L.Ed.2d 689 (1984) (using both a polity and neutral principles of law analysis); Fonken v. Community Church of Kamrar, Iowa Supr., 339 N.W.2d 810, 812, 819 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Other courts applying neutral principles of

A: holding that under california law a constructive trust may be sought only by the equitable owner of the trust res not by a creditor of the equitable owner
B: holding that a church can have both a religious aspect and an economic one when the church operated a daycare center
C: holding that finding of implied trust in the general church was correct under both neutral principles of law and compulsory deference approaches
D: recognizing 10th circuits finding of breach of trust
C.