With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 209. Issue I. Payment of Third-Party Claim. Herman first contends that the trial court erred in ordering him as co-trustee of the Main Trust to pay Albert and Woll Enterprises, Inc. for services rendered in operating the Main Trust's oil interests. He argues that the trial court, sitting as a probate court, lacked sufficient subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a claim against the Main Trust asserted by a party not a party to the cause of action. Herman relies primarily on IND.CODE 30-4-6-1 (placing jurisdiction over trusts with the probate courts); IND.CODE 33-5-43-4 (de scribing the jurisdiction of Vanderburgh Superior Court); Wedmore v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 545, 122 N.E.2d 1; Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York v. State ex rel. Anderson (1933), 98 Ind.App. 485, 184 N.E. 916 (<HOLDING>); and Husted v. Sweeney (1943), 113 Ind.App.

A: holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document
B: holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred
C: holding that the board of supervisors possesses only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied therefrom
D: holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry
B.