With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rights declared in older court orders. See Sleboede v. Sleboede, 384 Mich. 655, 184 N.W.2d 923, 925 (1971). Rather, they merely “make [the court’s] records speak the truth — to record that which was actually done, but omitted to be recorded.” Id. at 925 n.6. That is, nunc pro tunc orders fix clerical mistakes in old orders. Nunc pro tunc orders do not revise the substance of what has transpired, backdate events, or give rise to new substantive rights, including resetting the statute of limitations. Crangle v. Kelly, 838 F.3d 673, 680 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding that Ohio nunc pro tunc orders “merely correct[ ] ... record[s] to accurately reflect the court’s actions ... not ... reset[ ] the statute of limitations .... ”); Glynne v. Wilmed Healthcare, 699 F.3d 380, 383-84 (4th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th

A: holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record
B: holding that appellate court may presume trial court took judicial no tice of its own record and that trial court record in that case supported prejudice element
C: holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record
D: holding that nunc pro tunc orders correct mistakes or omissions in the record so that the record properly reflects the events that actually took place they may not be used to retroactively record an event that never occurred or have the record reflect a fact that never existed
D.