You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

the courts of this state, unless the cause of action arose out of such ownership. See 48.193(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991). Further, the mere execution of a guaranty generally is insufficient to subject a nonresident defendant to the jurisdiction of a Florida court. See Holton v. Prosperity Bank, 602 So'.2d 659, 662-63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also PluessStaufer Industries v. Rol-lason Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., 635 So.2d 1070, 1073 n. 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Cf. Hamilton v. Business Assistance Consortium, Inc., 602 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). 6 . In reaching this conclusion, we did not consider any activities Nichols performed as an officer or director of the different NTS corporations, including NTS, NTS/Residential, and OLF, Inc. See Doe v. Thompson', 620 So.2d 1004 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>). Accord Eller v. Allen, 623 So.2d 545 (Fla.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation (B) holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents (C) holding that although a corporate officer is not presumed to be personally liable for corporate debts the officer may expressly bind himself or herself to be answerable for such debts (D) holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract (E) holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law
Output:
holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents