With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Steams’ only desire was essentially to make a copy of the document to be used in his name. By being brought in his name, any defect relating to the Board’s standing is irrelevant; Steams had standing under the Act and timely filed his Petition. The fact that Steams did not act as a scribe, copying the arguments of the Board’s Petition, does not mean that his Petition is automatically void due to the Board’s lack of standing. Rule 1:4(0, as cited by the Commission, allows any “accompanying exhibit” to be a part of a pleading by reference; nothing more is required. If the Board had no standing to file its Petition, then the Petition would have no “legal effect,” meaning that its efficiency as a “pleading” would be negated. See e.g., Jordan v. Liggan, 95 Va. 616, 29 S.E. 330 (1898) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the mere words of the Petition

A: holding that pleading rules are substantive
B: holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property
C: holding that an insufficient pleading in equity is a nullity
D: holding  he who seeks equity must do equity
C.