fees on appeal. Costs to Harper. Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices J. JONES, W. JONES and HORTON, concur. 1 . Partout does not appeal the dismissal of his second claim against Harper, violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. Below, Partout conceded this was not a valid claim. 2 . Partout also argues that even if he is not a third-party beneficiary, Harper owed Partout a duty “to perform his appraisal in an accurate manner” and that a breach of this duty gives rise to a tort. Though Partout argued below that his complaint is sufficient to support a claim that Harper committed a tortious breach of his duty, he does not make that argument on appeal. Therefore, we will not consider this issue on appeal. See KEB Enters., L.P. v. Smedley, 140 Idaho 746, 754, 101 P.3d 690, 698 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Partout argues that "[p]roof of the
holding that issues raised but not supported by argument are deemed abandoned holding this court does not consider issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument holding that issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument  are waived if either authority or argument is lacking not just if both are lacking holding that criminal aliens argument that the ij abused its discretion by not granting her a continuance does not present a constitutional claim or issue of law that this court has jurisdiction to consider holding cases are not authority for propositions not considered