With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to Cadle, junior unavoidable hens, like the tax hen in this case, should not be included in the computation of the impairment. Using this approach, the junior tax lien should have been removed from the impairment calculation, and no amount of Cadle’s judicial hen would be avoided. In In re Kolich, 328 F.3d 406 (8th Cir. 2003), the Eighth Circuit considered whether hens junior to the judicial hen in question should be included in the calculation under § 522(f)(2)(A). The court pointed out that subsection 522(f)(2)(A)(ii) states the computation of the impairment shah include “all other hens on the property.” The Eighth Circuit interpreted the term “all other hens on the property” to include junior hens. 328 F.3d at 410; see also In re Smith, 315 B.R. 636, 641 (Bankr.D.Mass.2004) (<HOLDING>). Cadle contests the Eighth Circuit’s

A: holding that under texas law the mere representation of a party in a lawsuit does not establish privity between an attorney and his or her client
B: holding federal law does not prevent a state from choosing between prospective operation of its decision and that of relation backward
C: holding that it was permissible to distinguish between hospital and clinic providers of psychiatric services and private psychiatrists
D: holding  522f2 does not distinguish between senior hens and junior hens between those having greater and lesser priority under state law
D.