With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cites several cases that are not on point with this case. See Trane Co. v. Bakkalapulo, 234 Kan. 348, 672 P.2d 586 (1983) (mechanic’s hen statement’s verification, which was signed by attorney for corporate subcontractor, was not defective for failing to state attorney’s representative capacity in verification statement; redundant for affiant to restate representative capacity in affidavit where it already appeared in hen state ment being verified); J. Walters Constr. Co., 15 Kan. App. 2d 697 (determining that statements of labor and material that were attached to hen statement were sufficient to meet the “ ‘not too demanding’ ” standard used in testing the adequacy of the itemization of labor and materials furnished); Kopp’s Rug Co. v. Talbot, 5 Kan. App. 2d 565, 620 P.2d 1167 (1980) (<HOLDING>). None of those cases cited above involved the

A: holding that appellants specific factual denial of receipt was sufficient evidence to defeat the presumption of receipt raised by a docket entry showing mailing
B: holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established
C: holding that service of notice of lien statements on homeowners was sufficient even though endorsement stated return receipt requested instead of return receipt requested showing address where delivered where service was handled in same manner and where homeowners received and signed for address shown on return receipt moreover actual notice was sufficient under statute
D: holding service of process defective when the receipt card was signed by someone who was not the registered agent
C.