In Swiss Property Management Co., Inc. v. Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 839, the sellers agreed to sell two parcels of property to the buyer and further agreed to take back deeds of trust as part of the purchase financing. A rider to the deeds of trust provided the sellers would subordinate their deeds of trust "for construction and development financing," consistent with certain criteria set forth in the rider, including a requirement the loan funds "be used solely in connection with the development of the Property." (Id. at p. 841.) The buyer obtained a construction loan conditioned on the lender having first lien priority. To accomplish this, the lender and the title insurance company required the sellers to sign a California Land Title Association (CLTA) form subordination agreement, identical in all material ways to the subordination agreement signed in this case. (Ibid.) The subordination agreement provided the lender's deed of trust "shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge on the property prior and superior to the lien or charge of the sellers' deed of trust," and further provided, "this agreement shall be the whole and only agreement with regard to subordination of the lien or charge of the sellers' deed of trust to the lien or charge of the lender's deed of trust and shall supersede and cancel, but only insofar as would affect the priority between the deeds of trust hereinbefore specifically described, any prior agreement as to such subordination including, but not limited to, those provisions, if any, contained in the sellers' deed of trust, which provide for the subordination of the lien or charge thereof to another deed or deeds of trust or to another mortgage or mortgages." (Id. at pp. 841-842.) The subordination agreement, also like the agreement signed in this case, "clearly notified the sellers that the lender would not monitor disbursement of funds." (Id. at p. 845.) The sellers argued on appeal that the lender lost the priority given by the subordination agreement because the lender did not ensure compliance with the conditions contained in the rider to their deeds of trust. (Id. at p. 841.) The Court of Appeal held the subordination agreement superseded the specific terms of the rider to the sellers' deeds of trust; therefore, there was "no breach of the conditions of subordination" and the lender's lien had priority. (Swiss Property, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 849.) The court first acknowledged the competing interests at stake: on one hand, there are "strong public policy reasons to protect the seller in subordination situations"; on the other, "the lender can set the terms and conditions under which it is willing to loan money, including the condition that the security for its loan be an insured first priority position." (Id. at pp. 842-843.)