With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the intent of the decedent changed before death and the decedent by written order informed the financial institution of this change.” In re Estate of Banko, 622 N.E.2d at 480. The statements shed no light on Helbling’s intent at the time she and Decker created the joint accounts, and, as noted above, the Siblings and the Estate have produced no evidence that Helbling notified the financial institution in writing of an intent to deny Decker a right to survivorship. Accordingly, even if the trial court erred in striking Avery’s affidavit and a paragraph of Glen Cornell’s affidavit, admission of the statements in question would not have affected any party’s rights in this case, and the error was harmless. See, e.g., Parke County v. Ropak, Inc., 526 N.E.2d 732, 740-741 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. The Siblings and the Estate

A: holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion
B: holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay
C: holding that even if the trial court erred in excluding a letter from evidence that fell within an exception to the hearsay rule the error was harmless where admission of the letter would not have had a substantial effect on a partys rights
D: holding letter from specialist to treating physician fell within business entry exception to the hearsay rule
C.