With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ultimately, the condemnor was successful in its argument that it owned virtually all of the 2,241 acres that it wanted to take. Id. Because the condemnor never tried to abandon its efforts to gain ownership of the 2,241 acres it originally sought to condemn, we find Zucht to be a different case than the one before us. The State further argues that, assuming its condemnation petition against Parcel C was dismissed, the trial court nevertheless had nothing to sever into a cause of action relating solely to Parcel C. The trial court, however, did have something to sever, namely, the Tammingas’ statutory right to compensation for their expenses in defending themselves against the State’s efforts to condemn Parcel C. See General Land Office v. OXY U.S.A, Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 570 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court did not err

A: holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa
B: holding that a plaintiff has no right to a nonsuit when the defendant has counterclaimed for affirmative relief independent of the plaintiffs claims
C: holding that a failure to advise even when the defendant has an affirmative obligation to do so is not the same as engaging in affirmative misconduct 
D: holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims
B.