With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2253227, at *2 (Tex.App.-Beaumont July 30, 2009, no pet.) (memo. op.). Defective service may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1990); see also Houston Precast, Inc. v. McAllen Constr., Inc., No. 13-07-135-CV, 2008 WL 4352636, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 25, 2008, no pet.) (memo. op.). Appellants rely on Uvalde Country Club to complain that service was invalid. See Uvalde Country Club, 690 S.W.2d at 884-85. However, their reliance is misplaced. In Uvalde Country Club, the citation was served on Henry Bunting, but the petition identified “Henry Bunting, Jr.” as the registered agent for service of process. Id. at 885. The supreme court found that this was ineffective service. Id.; see Hendon v. Pugh, 46 Tex. 211, 212 (Tex.1876) (<HOLDING>). The present case is distinguishable. It is

A: holding that service was ineffective when service was made on jn hendon but the petition named jw hendon as the defendant
B: holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service
C: holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service
D: holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
A.