Court Opinion

ID: 7740054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:59:50.403034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:00.427907
License: Public Domain

I concurred in the majority opinion released on October 15, 1999. However, in light of the Bank's application for rehearing, I have reconsidered that vote. I now dissent.
On application for rehearing, the Bank has cited Lee v.United Federal Savings Loan Ass'n, 466 So.2d 131 (Ala. 1985), a case in which our supreme court stated:
 "[T]he mere lending of money on a house by a financial institution, albeit one with knowledge of deficiencies in the house, does not create a confidential relationship, or other circumstances imposing a duty to disclose information at the lender's disposal."
466 So.2d at 134. Although I can see some distinctions between the present case and Lee, I can also see some distinctions between the present case and Soniat, on which the court relies. However, because Lee specifically involves a lending institution, it is better authority for affirming the judgment than Soniat is for reversing the judgment. Therefore, I dissent.