see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Motley, 909 So.2d 806, 822 (Ala.2005) (“[I]t is well settled that a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 28(a)(10) ... provides this Court with a basis for disregarding those arguments.”), and concentrating solely on the arguments properly argued and supported by the State, I find no basis for reversing the judgment of the trial court. The State argues that the evidence proved that the grandmother purchased the truck as a sham transaction to protect the grandson’s illegal use, as occurred in Lee v. State ex rel. Hare, 259 Ala. 455, 66 So.2d 881 (1958). However, the trial court disagreed with that assertion, and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Buchanan v. Buchanan, 936 So.2d 1084, 1087 (Ala.Civ.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). The State also argues that the trial court
holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings holding that findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence holding a determination regarding eligibility for asylum is conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process