With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at the Defendants’ farm. Id. Finally, Leske has verified that she maintained a substantial nexus to the Defendants’ farm, both prior to, and during, the Summer of 1996. According to Leske, she had known the Defendants . C2-95-795, 1995 WL 673008 *2 (Minn.App. Nov. 14, 1995) (concluding that the Summons delivered to Cooper’s home, and left with his father-in-law, a visitor staying there for ten days, was reasonably calculated to provide notice); but see, Cleaves v. Funk, 76 F.2d 828, 829-30 (10th Cir.1935) (requiring permanency of residence); Burtchaell v. Hoffman, 508 So.2d 738, 738-39 (Fla.App.1987) (concluding that girlfriend, who was from another State, and who occasionally visited for few days to a week, was not residing therein); Gamboa v. Jones, 455 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). As a consequence, since the Plaintiff has

A: holding that a tenday visitor was not residing therein
B: holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay
C: holding housekeeper did not reside therein
D: holding fourmonth visitor was residing therein
A.