With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has not filed any motion for rehearing. 3 . 47 U.S.C.A. §§ 521-559 (West Supp.1985). 4 . The County’s brief contended that Americable was a public utility and thus entitled to use a public utility easement. Americable’s brief was confined to its res judicata/collateral estoppel theory, which we rejected out of hand. See p. 61 n. 4. To the extent that Americable’s motion for rehearing attempts to reargue this position, the motion must be denied on that ground. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(a). 5 .Had this case come to us from a lower court decision in homeowners’ favor, we would have affirmed that decision, and Americable's untimeliness in raising this issue may have resulted in the issue, unless jurisdictional, being permanently waived. Cf. Dober v. Worrell, 401 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1981)

A: holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court
B: holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error
C: holding that defendant could not claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request
D: holding district court of appeal in error for reversing summary judgment entered for defendant so that plaintiff could plead fraudulent concealment on remand for the first time
D.