With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". National Bank of Richmond, 223 Va. 519, 290 S.E.2d 863 (1982), held that exempt funds deposited into a general account and commingled with non-exempt funds lose their exempt status. Accordingly, because these funds have been commingled with non-exempt funds in a general bank account, which has been used by both parties to pay individual and joint bills, the social security benefits are no longer exempt. While the court is aware that several federal courts have questioned the holding of Bernardini, the court will adhere to this binding precedent. See NCNB Financial Services v. Shumate, 829 F. Supp. 178, 180-81 (W.D. Va. 1993), aff’d sub nom. NationsBank of North Carolina, N.A. v. Shumate, 45 F.3d 427 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. den. 515 U.S. 1161, 132 L. Ed. 2d 859, 115 S. Ct. 2616 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The Bernardini court distinguished Philpott

A: holding that the express language of  407a and the clear intent of congress that social security benefits not be attachable
B: holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation
C: holding that under 42 usc  407a social security benefits commingled with other nonexempt funds in a bank account remain exempt if the funds are reasonably traceable to social security income
D: holding a social security number is not private
C.