In Gill v. Mission Savings & Loan Assn. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 753, the sellers subordinated their deeds of trust to that of the defendant lender, who loaned money to a development company to enable the company to construct improvements on the subject property. Also like the present case, the sellers sued the lender for negligence, alleging the lender "'carelessly and negligently managed and supervised the distribution of the construction loan funds.'" (Id. at p. 755.) The trial court sustained the lender's demurrer. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the lender owed no duty to the sellers "to exercise ordinary care in managing and supervising the distribution of the funds." (Ibid.) The court explained: "At most, the amended complaint supports an inference that the sellers and the development company agreed that the loaned funds would be used only for such purposes, and that the lender had knowledge of this agreement. . . . Nowhere in the first amended complaint does it appear that the lender agreed with anyone to manage or supervise distribution of the loaned funds, assumed to do so, actually undertook such, or was required by statutory law or regulation to so manage or supervise. Nor is there any showing of a voluntarily assumed relationship between the lender and the sellers from which such an obligation might arise. If the lender had no obligation to manage and supervise distribution of the construction funds, obviously, it had no duty to exercise ordinary care in the performance of such an obligation. " (Id. at pp. 756-757.)