With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had an adequate remedy at law. The gist of appellants’ counterclaims is that American is a competitor and is unlawfully attempting to restrict them ability to maintain a competing business. Appellants’ complaint fails initially because they failed to support them written motion for continuance with an affidavit as required by rule 251. Tex.R. Civ. P. 251. Generally, when a movant fails to comply with rule 251, we presume the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for continuance. Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex.1986); Sw. Country Enters., Inc. v. Lucky Lady Oil Co., 991 S.W.2d 490, 493 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied); see also TriSteel Structures, Inc. v. Baptist Found. of Tex., 166 S.W.3d 443, 448-49 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Appellants did not comply with rule 251;

A: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
C: holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing
D: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for a continuance when record showed that contrary to defendants contention state did not fail to comply with discovery duties and that defendant failed to show that denial resulted in harm to his case
B.