With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court turns to the expenses re-quested. Pikco requested $385.00 in ex-penses, which are included as a separate category in the fee itemization. Adv. Dkt. No. 20-1 at 5. Staten did not challenge the claimed expenses in her objection, and the Court finds the expenses listed are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pik-co is entitled to ■ the full amount of ex-penses requested. IV. Conclusion Having considered the Mississippi Rule 1.5 factors and the lodestar amount, the Court finds that Pikco" is entitled to collect $1,270.00 in attorney’s fees and $385.00 in expenses for a total award of $1,655.00. This amount shall be added to the debt Staten owes Pikco, which the parties previ-ously agreed to be nondischargeable in the amount of $1,347.90. See In re Jordan, 927 F.2d at 226-28 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the total non-dischargeable debt

A: holding that where party has contracted to pay attorneys fees for collection of nondischargeable debt attorneys fee award also will not be discharged in bankruptcy
B: holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency
C: holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees
D: holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
A.