With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". after the cause of action accrues). 5 . On August 24, 2006, the Dormans filed a motion to -certify statement of evidence regarding the trial court’s conversations with juror number 5. The trial court denied the motion and instead issued an affidavit pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 31(D). Appellants' App. at 364. This affidavit is the sole source of our recitation of the trial court’s conversations with juror number 5. 6 . Because the language here does not constitute assertions of fact but are descriptions regarding Mark’s state of mind as to whether CCA-treated wood caused his injury, this case is distinguishable from the cases cited by the Dormans in which statements in briefs were held to be admissible: In re: Southeast Banking Corp., 855 F.Supp. 353, 357 n. 2 (S.D.Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>); Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway and Park Dist. of

A: holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee
B: holding that trustee may bring assigned creditor claims where estate is the real party in interest
C: holding that because  544b1 provides only the power of avoidance it does not confer authority on the trustee to pursue state law damage claims but that the trustee could pursue such claims under  544a1 or 2 if the claims could have been asserted by the debtor corporation
D: holding that trustees statement in a previously filed brief that trustee could bring claims accruing on or after september 20 1987 was a judicial admission by the trustee that statute of limitations precluded all claims arising before that date
D.