# Cole v. Farmers Exchange Bank

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · October 15, 1999 · 783 So. 2d 16

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7740054

## Case

- **Full name:** Sara Cole v. Farmers Exchange Bank.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** October 15, 1999
- **Citations:** 783 So. 2d 16; 1999 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 761; 1999 WL 820799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crawley
- **Judges:** Robertson, Yates, Monroe, Crawley, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7740054

## Opinion text

CRAWLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
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 v. Johnson-Rast & Hays, 626 So.2d 1256 (Ala.1993), 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7740054. Public record. Not legal advice.