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.

[Q]: to foreclosure for mortgagors who are in default before initiating foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the National Housing Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. 1701-x(c)(5) (effective July 30, 2008), and pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Walkers contend that they were never offered counseling services or any other loss-mitigation services before the foreclosure sale. Although the record does not contain evidence indicating that the Walkers were provided counseling or other loss-mitigation services before foreclosure, this court has determined that any alleged failure to comply with loss-mitigation procedures does not constitute a valid defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure. See Coleman, 104 So.3d at 206 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the alleged failure to exhaust all
Holding statements: (A) holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible (B) holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department (C) holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale (D) holding that in the absence of a statute or controlling authority from our supreme court to the contrary we conclude that the failure of a foreclosing entity to comply with department of housing and urban development or department of veterans affairs lossmitigation requirements may not be raised as a defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure (E) holding nonparty department of mental health had standing to appeal commitment order regarding person found not guilty by reason of insanity because department had direct interest that was affected by commitment order and because employees of the department conceivably could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order
[A]: holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible

[Q]: N.E.2d 968, 973 (Ind.1999). However, when the landowner is a lessor and the lessee is in operational control of the premises, such duty rarely exists. "[A] landlord under many circumstances has no liability to tenants or others for injuries on the property when the tenant is in full control of the leased premises." Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 849 N.E.2d 516, 525 (Ind.2006). "[I]n the absence of statute, covenant, fraud or concealment, a landlord who gives a tenant full control and possession of the leased property will not be liable for personal injuries sustained by the tenant or other persons lawfully' upon the leased property." Olds v. Noel, 857 N.E.2d 1041, 1044 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted), tram, not' sought; cf. Rossow v. Jones, 404 N.E.2d 12, 14 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>), trans. not sought. Yost v. Wabash College, 3
Holding statements: (A) holding over (B) holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship (C) holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building (D) holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control (E) holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
[A]: holding over

[Q]: 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (emphasis in original). 3 . During the attack victim's uncle and cousin, who had arrived on the scene, called 911. 4 ., On March 15, 2016, the State filed a multiple bill of information pursuant to La. R.S. 15:529.1, charging Defendant as a quadruple offender based on a 2009 guilty plea to unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling; a 2002 guilty plea to illegal possession of a stolen automobile worth over $500; and a 1996 guilty plea to i l be sentenced to imprisonment for the fourth or subsequent felony for a determinate term of not less than the longest prescribed for a first conviction but in no event less than twenty years and not more than his natural life," , (emphasis added). See State v. Shaw, 2006-2467pp. 23-24 (La. 11/27/07), 969 So.2d 1233, 1247 (<HOLDING>). 8 . As Judge Jenkins recognizes in her
Holding statements: (A) holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony (B) holding our habitual offender act does not limit enhancement to prior felony convictions within a certain time (C) holding that all sentences for convictions on same date for a single course of criminal conduct are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender law overruling state ex rel porter v butler 573 so2d 1106 la 1991 and state v sherer 411 so2d 1050 la 1982 (D) holding that it is permissible for a trial court to consider the same prior offenses for both enhancement of the instant offense and to establish habitual offender status (E) holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement
[A]:
holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony