the vehicle, and she later decided to sell the truck to [the grandson]. This was not enough to perfect a security interest in the property....” State’s brief, p. 9. That argument basically asserts three premises: (1) that a “bona fide lienholder” is one who holds a “perfected security interest” in personal property subject to forfeiture; (2) that a security interest cannot be formed without a written contract; and (3) that the failure to list a lienholder with a perfected security interest on a certificate of title of an automobile indicates the nonexistence of a perfected security interest in the automobile. Each of those propositions are not so necessarily self-evident that they do not require some citation to legal authority. See Ex parte Dekle, 991 So.2d 1257, 1262 (Ala.2008) (<HOLDING>). However, the State has provided this court
holding that appellant must cite legal authority for propositions of law that are not selfevident citing state farm mut auto ins co v motley 909 so2d 806 822 ala2005 holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding this court does not consider issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument holding cases are not authority for propositions not considered holding an argument waived for failure to cite authority