With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". DRHI’s claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 1 . CHS Savannah, L.P. is not a party to this appeal. 2 . D.R. Horton and DRHI do not challenge on appeal the trial court’s ruling on Savannah’s motion to reconsider. 3 . Savannah also claims the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying D.R. Horton’s and DRHI’s motion for continuance because D.R. Horton and DRHI did not file an affidavit in support of their motion as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 251. A review of the record, however, reveals that D.R. Horton and DRHI did file an affidavit in support of their motion. 4 . Compare Hightower v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 251 S.W.3d 218, 224-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. struck) (<HOLDING>), and Dart v. Balaam, 953 S.W.2d 478, 483

A: holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
B: holding that appellant did not preserve error because he failed to obtain ruling on motion for continuance
C: holding it was error for trial court not to grant a continuance when appellant moved in open court to disqualify judge or in the alternative for a continuance to file a proper motion
D: holding that appellant failed to preserve error because it did not present appellate complaint to trial court
B.