With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Card Serv./Visa v. Vermillion (In re Vermillion), 136 B.R. 225, 227 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1992); FCC Nat’l Bank v. Bartlett (In re Bartlett), 128 B.R. 775, 779-80 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1991). But see AT&T Universal Card Serv. Corp v. Nguyen (In re Nguyen), 208 B.R. 258, 261 (D.Mass.1997) (stating that "an intent to deceive cannot be inferred solely from a failure to perform an implied promise, ... [and] the inability to repay a debt at the time it is incurred ... is insufficient as a rule to prove fraud”). 43 . Feld, 203 B.R. at 367; AT&T Universal Card Serv. v. Alvi (In re Alvi), 191 B.R. 724, 732-33 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1996). 44 . 196 B.R. at 449. 45 . Feld, at 365. 46 . Id. 47 . Id. 48 . GM Card v. Cox (In re Cox), 182 B.R. 626, 628 (Bankr.D.Mass.199 chards), 196 B.R. 481, 482 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996) (<HOLDING>). But see AT&T Universal Card Serv. v. Burdge

A: holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence
B: holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence
C: holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana
D: holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary
A.