With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Mason v. Homes By Whitaker, Inc., 971 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The assignments did not alter the fact that the homeowners reside in Palm Beach County where the damage occurred and where the critical witnesses are located. Although RJG’s venue selection is “meaningful” in assessing the convenience of the parties, it “is not the paramount consideration.” See Elsenheimer, 952 So.2d at 578 (quoting Darby v. Atlanta Cas. Ins. Co., 752 So.2d 102, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Convenience is a compelling consideration in transferring venue. Id. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring venue to Palm Beach County. See E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Fuzzell, 681 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. DAVIS and KELLY, JJ„

A: holding that trial court abused its discretion in not transferring venue to alternative county
B: holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact
C: holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion
D: holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in transferring case that would impose financial hardship on a party no matter where heard
A.