With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding cases are not authority for propositions not considered
C: holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief
D: holding this court does not consider issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument
A.