Court Opinion

ID: 9934281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:53:44.275494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:32.900905
License: Public Domain

In Tierce v. APS Company, 382 So.2d 485 (Ala. 1980), I dissented on application for rehearing, since it was my opinion that we should have affirmed the trial court because of its specific findings, Tierce at 489, that the due-on-sale clause was not openly stated and bargained for, that the lender's security was not endangered by the sale, and that the lender's exercise of his rights under the clause was to force an increase in the interest rate originally bargained for. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this case to the trial court for its findings and determinations consistent with my dissent in Tierce.
MADDOX and SHORES, JJ., concur.