With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to have each enjoy his own [share] in severalty”); 68 C.J.S. Partition § 30 (2016) ("A partition can be demanded at any time, regardless of conditions, and, when properly demanded, the only function of the court is to determine the method of making it.”); 59A Am. Jur. 2d Partition § 5 (2016) (explaining that the right to partition "does not yield to considerations of hardship, inconvenience, or difficulty”). 3 . At the time it decided Hipp (several years prior to the effective date of the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act of 1970), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was the trial court of general jurisdiction in cases arising under District of Columbia law). See Newman v. Coakley, 285 A.2d 690, 692 (D.C. 1972). See also Carter, 516 A.2d at 921 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Sebold, decided on February 12, 1-9.71,

A: recognizing that the court has to take into consideration  the nature and circumstances of the  defendant but at the same time the court failed to see any attributes that are given pointwise in the sentencing guidelines for doing good
B: recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court
C: holding that an adverse credibility determination under the real id act must take into account the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors
D: holding open the possibility that the partition statute might lend itself to flexibility to take into account the financial and other circumstances of the cotenants
D.