With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". matter designated to the trial court." Ford v. Culp Custom Homes, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 468, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trams. denied. Thus, we may affirm the trial court's denial of the Association's motion for summary judgment if it sustainable on either basis. We conclude that the denial of the Asso-clation's motion for summary judgment if it is sustainable on the basis of laches. After the Association filed its motion for summary judgment, McGlothin responded by arguing, in part, that the Association lost the right to injunctive relief through "waiver, lashes [sic], or similar conduct." Appellant's Appendix at 76. The trial court denied the Association's motion for summary judgment, in part, because it found that genuine issues of material fact existed d 70, 73 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>), reh'g demied. The Association makes no other

A: holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit
B: holding party did not waive right to arbitrate despite moving to dismiss and moving for summary judgment on opponents claim
C: holding that the rules of procedure are structured to provide the nonmovant with substantially more time for filing affidavits than the moving party because the nonmoving party should have an opportunity to examine and reply to the moving partys papers before the court considers them
D: holding that the party moving for summary judgment waived its argument that the opposing partys affidavit should not be considered because the moving party never objected to the timeliness of the affidavit to the trial court
D.