Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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). In Cannon v. Gilmer, 135 Ala. 302, 304-05, 33
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. 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
C. holding that superior business expertise among other factors supported a finding of a confidential relationship
D. holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student
E. holding that although cohabitation is not in itself the de facto equivalent of marriage that would warrant modification of spousal maintenance all evidence relating to the economic nature of the relationship between wife and cohabitant would be relevant and admissible to show that wifes support needs have changed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.