With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". attorney sent the undated facsimile as an enclosure to the October 9, 2008 letter to Snyder. Assuming without deciding that Snyder was LFG’s attorney of record on October 9, 2008, we note that the garnishee, Chase, was served on September 19, 2008, and that the trial court signed the judgment in garnishment on October 10, 2008. Thus, AMC served a copy of the writ of garnishment on LFG’s attorney twenty days after service on the garnishee and one day before the trial court signed the judgment in garnishment. However, nothing in the record explains the twenty-day delay in service. Under these circumstances, we hold AMC failed to prove that it served LFG through its attorney “as soon as practicable” as' required by rule 663a. Tex.R. Civ. P. 663a; see also Requena, 2002 WL 356696, *3^4 (<HOLDING>). AMC’s failure to prove it strictly complied

A: holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank
B: holding garnishor did not serve judgment debtor as soon as practicable where garnishor could have reasonably served judgment debtor fifteen days before it did
C: holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
D: recognizing that if a debtor did not satisfy section 109e and if it was jurisdictional the court could not convert debtors case because it would have no authority whatever over debtor
B.