With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Greenes. Thus, we need not address further the defendants’ argument as to them. As to a potential action against Rizzo and/or Ledge Rock, the plaintiffs offered evidence at trial that Audette in 2009 believed that Ledge Rock was out of business, that Rizzo had no assets, and that Rizzo owed a significant amount of money to creditors. The trial court found that Audette was aware that Rizzo had “hit hard times,” that “his whereabouts [were] unknown,” and that others had told Audette that Rizzo “owed a lot of money to a lot of people and disappeared.” The defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the money was uncollectable from Rizzo or Ledge Rock in November 2009, but the plaintiffs had no burden to do so. See Flanagan v. Prudhomme, 138 N.H. 561, 575-76 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The defendants here offered no evidence to

A: holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden
B: holding that defendants failed to carry burden of proof to show that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages when among other things they offered no evidence contradicting the plaintiffs evidence
C: holding that defendant failed to meet the burden of strict proof required to show abandonment
D: holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial
B.