With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (stating that majority rule is that an automatic termination clause forecloses a lessee from recovering for the value of his unexpired leasehold estate); 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 5.02[6][h];-5.02[6][j] (recognizing that month-to-month tenant and/or a tenant-at-will have no property interest that would entitle the tenant to compensation); 26 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 232 (2011) (recognizing that a mere tenant at will, at sufferance, or from month-to-month is generally not entitled to compensation for the taking of his or her interest). 10 . A tenant has a claim for permanent fixtures or improvements integrated into a building to the extent that the fixtures or improvements have an enhancing effect upon the market or rental value of the premises. 2 N / , 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Of course, the "unified” offer

A: holding that offer of judgment made to fee owner under statutes and rules no longer applicable did not cut off fee owners right to fees because offer did not state it was being made free and clear of the tenants claims and because in any event condemning authority had made substantial changes to the construction plans and design which decreased the scope of the taking thereby reducing the amount awarded to landowner at trial
B: holding defendant landowner entitled to appellate attorneys fees and costs where condemning authority appealed fee award and defendant prevailed
C: holding that section 730922 should be applied to determine an attorneys fee award in eminent domain proceedings when no offer is made by the condemning authority thus making subsection 1 inapplicable
D: holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law
A.