at the Defendants’ farm. Id. Finally, Leske has verified that she maintained a substantial nexus to the Defendants’ farm, both prior to, and during, the Summer of 1996. According to Leske, she had known the Defendants . C2-95-795, 1995 WL 673008 *2 (Minn.App. Nov. 14, 1995) (concluding that the Summons delivered to Cooper’s home, and left with his father-in-law, a visitor staying there for ten days, was reasonably calculated to provide notice); but see, Cleaves v. Funk, 76 F.2d 828, 829-30 (10th Cir.1935) (requiring permanency of residence); Burtchaell v. Hoffman, 508 So.2d 738, 738-39 (Fla.App.1987) (concluding that girlfriend, who was from another State, and who occasionally visited for few days to a week, was not residing therein); Gamboa v. Jones, 455 So.2d 613, 614 (Fla.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). As a consequence, since the Plaintiff has
holding the tenday requirement was ministerial and the defendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the delay holding housekeeper did not reside therein holding fourmonth visitor was residing therein holding babysitter was not residing therein holding that a tenday visitor was not residing therein