With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleged ECOA violations as affirmative defenses because allowing a debtor to assert a violation as an affirmative defense is not the proper method of recovery under the ECOA. In dicta, we have said, “the debt- or may assert the ECOA claim in the nature of recoupment.” Lincoln, 433 N.W.2d at 712. We have never decided or commented on whether a debtor can use an ECOA claim as an affirmative defense. Currently, there is a split of authority among federal and state jurisdictions on the issue of whether a debtor can assert an alleged ECOA violation after the statute of limitations has run on an offensive action for damages under the ECOA. The di 829 F.Supp. 163, 169 (E.D.Va.1993) (same), aff'd, 36 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.1994); CMF Va. Land, L.P. v. Brinson, 806 F.Supp. 90, 93 (E.D.Va.1992) (<HOLDING>). This position rests on two grounds. First,

A: holding that an ecoa violation is not properly asserted as an affirmative defense to liability and should instead take the form of a compulsory counterclaim
B: holding defendant was entitled to assert an ecoa violation as an affirmative defense to avoid only her liability because to do otherwise would be to enforce conduct that is forbidden by the ecoa
C: holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense
D: holding even though an affirmative action for damages is barred the debtor may assert an ecoa violation defensively in the nature of recoupment
A.