With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a lien against her property,” 694 So.2d at 1358; and that the statute of limitations should have been tolled until the mother actually discovered that the hen had been filed. This court rejected the mother’s argument that the mother and daughter had a confidential relationship. Noting that the daughter and her husband “had appropriated [over $50,000] to themselves from [the mother’s] bank account, without [the mother’s] consent or permission,” 694 So.2d at 1358, the court held that “it could not be said that there existed such a ‘confidential relationship’ between the parties that [the daughter and son-in-law] occupied a role which inspired confidence that they were acting in good faith for [the mother’s] interest.” Id. Compare Jordan v. Mitchell, 705 So.2d 453, 461 (Ala.Civ.App.1997)(<HOLDING>). In Cannon v. Gilmer, 135 Ala. 302, 304-05, 33

A: holding that the consent to search given by the defendants wife and cohabitant was an effective consent because it was consistent with the rationale set forth in united states v matlock
B: holding that superior business expertise among other factors supported a finding of a confidential relationship
C: holding that no confidential relationship existed between unmarried cohabitants because the female cohabitant neither relied upon any promise nor depended upon any financial expertise of the male cohabitant
D: holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
C.