In Middlebrook-Anderson Co. v. Southwest Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 1023, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment entered after the trial court sustained the lender's demurrer. There, the seller did not enter into an express subordination agreement, but rather agreed to subordination by recording after the lender, "i.e., subordination by operation of the recording laws." (Swiss Property, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 843.) "The complaint alleged that the lender (1) knew that the seller would subordinate only on condition that loan funds be used to develop the property; (2) undertook to control disbursements from the construction loan fund; and (3) allowed improper disbursements for nonconstruction purposes." (Ibid.) The court interpreted the complaint to allege "an arrangement of subordination whereby the seller relied upon the responsibility of the lender to make voucher payments only for construction purposes and the reliance of the seller was known to the lender." (Middlebrook-Anderson, supra, 18 Cal.App.3d at p. 1031.) Thus, because a condition of the alleged implied subordination agreement was "the proper use of the construction loan funds" (id. at p. 1033), and it was further alleged this condition was not satisfied, the complaint stated valid causes of action for restoration of the priority of the seller's deed of trust. (Id. at p. 1037.)