With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". seeds she had found, and threatened her son with eventual eviction if he did not desist. However, these steps fall short of what any reasonable land owner would undertake given such knowledge of drug use and cultivation. For example, she could have given notice to appropriate law enforcement officials, and she could have evicted her son upon the information she received from her daughter-in-law. At the very least, Ms. Scott could have investigated the property more thoroughly to determine whether marijuana was in fact growing there. While we understand that Ms. Scott might have had difficulty investigating the property on her own, nothing prevented her from having some third party — such as the police — investigate the property for her. Inste 930 F.2d 857, 860-61 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Congress has placed strict duties upon

A: holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney
B: holding admissible a letter which a woman had purportedly written to a judge 2 days before her death stating that her husband had threatened her and she feared him where the defendant husband claimed she had threatened him
C: holding that wife could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of her husband where the husbands claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of his death even though husbands death occurred after the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments as wifes status as a dependent was subject to determination as of the time of husbands injury
D: holding that a woman did not escape the consequences of consent to husbands illegal acts even though she presented evidence that her husband had beaten his previous wife to death had beaten her and owned several guns
D.