rule applies to the sale of used real estate unless a fiduciary relationship exists between the seller and the buyer or a unless the buyer makes specific inquiry of the seller) (citing Commercial Credit Corp. v. Lisenby, 579 So.2d 1291 (Ala.1991)). First, the record reflects no specific inquiry by the Carys of the Blaylocks or of the Blaylocks' real estate agent regarding the particular defect at issue— the water damage. See Cato, 630 So.2d at 382. Second, the record reflects no evidence of any relationship, much less a fiduciary relationship, between the Carys and the Blaylocks other than that of arm’s-length buyers and sellers who acted through qualified agents. See generally Compass Point Condominium Owners Ass’n v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 641 So.2d 253, 255 (Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The Caiys also assert claims alleging
holding that a real estate agent does not owe a buyer a duty independent of the agency relationship with the seller holding that the seller had no noncontractual duty to disclose water damage to armslength buyers of residential real estate holding that purchaser could rescind contract where seller failed to disclose a fact  the flooding of the subject real estate  that seller knew purchaser would regard as material recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest holding that no duty to disclose water damage existed where purchasers obtained property under an as is contract