With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for U.S. Bank satisfied the recording requirement of Minn.Stat. § 580.05 regarding an attorney-in-fact, and the district court did not err in concluding that the Embrees did not present any genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment to U.S. Bank on their challenge to the validity of the foreclosure by advertisement. Affirmed. 1 . At oral argument on appeal, the Embrees clarified that their challenge is not based on the fact that the limited power of attorney was filed several years prior to foreclosure of their mortgage. Their challenge is that the limited power of attorney recorded does not, standing alone, authorize Chase to act on behalf of U.S. Bank with regard to their mortgage. See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 36, 43 (Minn.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The parties do not dispute that

A: holding that a judgment creditor unlike a purchaser does not take subject to a prior mortgage which has been improperly recorded
B: holding parcp 1019 and parcp 1147 did not require that a preformalized assignment of a mortgage be recorded or attached to the complaint and assignee did not have to have recorded assignment to have standing to seek enforcement of mortgage in foreclosure action
C: holding that a mortgage or modification of a mortgage is not a good or a service under the dtpa
D: holding that an attorneyinfact acting under a limited power of attorney recorded prior to the mortgage it sought to foreclose did not violate minnstat  58005
D.