prohibit the Browns from mentioning the fact that there was a building on the property originally. However, the order prohibited the Browns from offering evidence regarding the value of the building or the expenses associated with moving the building. ¶ 23. MDOT contends that witnesses for the Browns several times made the jury aware that there was a building on the property which was being used as an antique store. ¶ 24. The Browns cite no authority in support of the above contentions. As a result, We refuse to consider these issues for failure to support the already sparse argument without any authority. Cook v. Mardi Gras Casino Corp., 697 So.2d 378, 382 (Miss.1997); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Sumrall v. Mississippi Power Co., 693 So.2d 359, 368 (Miss.1997) (<HOLDING>). V. THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ORDER THE
holding that a debtor bears the burden of persuasion under  1325a holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that appellant bears burden of persuasion on appeal and that appellate courts will not consider issues on appeal for which no supporting authority has been cited holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion