With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". noted at 152 N.C. App. 477, 2002 WL 1914015, at *7, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2144, at *19-20 (Aug. 20, 2002) (unpublished opinion); Hart v. Pharaoh, 1961 OK 45, 359 P.2d 1074, 1079; Berg v. Wilson, 353 S.W.3d 166, 180 (Tex. App. 2011); Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Mills, 590 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1979); Zweber v. Melar Ltd., 2004 WI App 185, ¶ 10, 276 Wis. 2d 156, 687 N.W.2d 818. But see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 405.32 (requiring cancellation of lis pendens notice if the filer failed to prove his claim at trial); Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, § 1608 (granting discretion to cancel lis pendens if the filer is not likely to prevail); Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2731 (permitting courts to cancel lis pendens in certain circumstances during litigation); Sloane v. Davis, 433 So. 2d 374, 375 (La. Ct. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Inv’rs Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 2010 ND 169,

A: holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action
B: holding that appeal did not prevent cancellation of lis pendens under statute reading in part that lis pendens shall be canceled  w hen judgment is rendered in the action or proceeding against the party who filed the notice of the pendency thereof     quoting la code civ proc ann art 3753
C: holding that statute permitting cancellation of lis pendens  at any time  allowed cancellation during pendency of appeal emphasis omitted quoting nd cent code  280508
D: holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal
B.