With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". $20,000 note pursuant to paragraph eleven of the 1980 divorce decree. On October 3, 1988, plaintiff filed a motion to bring forward and modify the alimony order and requested the court to rule on whether the three-year limitation in RSA 458:19 (1983) was applicable to this divorce. In response, defendant filed an objection to her motion and moved that plaintiff be found in contempt for failing to execute the will pursuant to the 1984 stipulation. On April 14,1989, counsel for both parties argued about the applicability of RSA 458:19 (1983). The Master’s (Peter J. Bourque, Esq.) recommendation, which the Superior Court (Dalianis, J.) subsequently approved, was that the three-year provision in RSA 458:19 was inapplicable, reasoning that Henry v. Henry, 129 N.H. 159, 525 A.2d 267 (1987) (<HOLDING>) was distinguishable on its facts. On May 10,

A: holding that the colloquy requirement established  shall only apply prospectively to cases in which the trial is not completed until after the date of the decision
B: holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date
C: holding that the penalty is applicable
D: holding new statute applicable only prospectively
D.