With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not precisely articulate their notarization argument on appeal, it was a central issue in the superior court. Because the Espelands are now proceeding pro se (they were represented by counsel in the superior court), we construe their general arguments to include the specific arguments presented to the superior court and address this issue. 29 . AS 44.50.062(5). 30 . The Espelands do not-cite to any law that would require such a disclosure. Conveyances of land, mortgages, and deeds of trust are dealt with extensively under AS 34.20.010-.160, and nowhere in these statutes is there such a disclosure requirement. 31 . The Espelands cite a Massachusetts case for the proposition that blank endorsements are invalid, US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637, 941 N.E.2d 40, 53 (2011) (<HOLDING>), but this case is inappo-site as Alaska

A: holding blank transfers of real property are impermissible under massachusetts law
B: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
C: holding that massachusetts provides an adequate remedy for challenging a real estate tax assessment
D: holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner
A.