With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and fifty-three years before Mennonite was decided, and thus, Respondents' argument fails. 7 . The parties contend there can be no claim of acquisitive prescription, as Lot 4 is covered by several feet of water, and thus, corporeal possession is not possible. Without ruling on this issue, we note what constitutes possession for the purpose of acquisitive prescription depends primarily on the nature of the property. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Landry, 558 So.2d 242, 244 (La.1990) (noting "a greater quality of possession is required in the case of woodland than in the case of swamp or marsh land”). The parties fail to cite to any case law holding acquisitive prescription is not possible for underwater property. See, e.g., Leake v. Richardson, 199 Va. 967, 976, 103 S.E.2d 227, 234 (1958) (<HOLDING>); 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 265, at 302

A: holding for underwater property there must be acts of ownership indicating a change of condition showing a notorious claim of title
B: holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child
C: recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing
D: holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances
A.