In Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1238 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 900 P.2d 601, a mortgage company allegedly was fraudulently induced by the buyers to extend them a home loan. ( Guild Mortgage Co., supra, at pp. 1508-1509, 1514.) The mortgage company sold the note to the FHLMC, which foreclosed, purchased the property at a nonjudicial sale, and which then required the mortgage company to repurchase the property. ( Id. at pp. 1508-1509.) The mortgage company lost over $ 50,000 in reselling the property on the open market. ( Id. at p. 1509.) Guild Mortgage Co. held the mortgage company had stated a cause of action for fraud in the inducement of the loan. ( Id. at p. 1514, 239 Cal. Rptr. 59.) With respect to the consequence of a full credit bid by the secondary purchaser, Guild Mortgage Co. stated: "Although the respective briefs devote considerable time to the legal and practical effect of a full credit bid on plaintiff's cause of action, we need not resolve that issue on this appeal. Regardless of whether the FHLMC purchased the property by making a full credit bid, the complaint avers that plaintiff Guild Mortgage and not the FHLMC was damaged in an amount exceeding $ 50,000 when it was required to repurchase and sell the property on the open market. The complaint further alleges that the repurchase was necessitated by defendants' fraud and that the loan would not have been made in the absence of the purported misrepresentations. . . . These allegations are sufficient to establish a clear causal connection between defendants' alleged fraudulent conduct and the damages sustained." ( Guild Mortgage Co. v. Heller, supra, 193 Cal. App. 3d at p. 1514.) In sum, a real estate lender brought an action against an appraiser and others alleging defendants fraudulently induced it to make loans by misrepresenting the value of the properties. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the lender's full credit bids at foreclosure sales barred its causes of action. The Court reversed and remanded stating: "To the extent the lender's full credit bids were proximately caused by defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, the lender's bids cannot be deemed an admission of the properties' value. Hence the full credit bid rule would not apply. In the alternative, to the extent the lender's full credit bids were not proximately caused by defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, . . . the full credit bid rule applies, and the lender's bid would then constitute an irrevocable offer to purchase the property for that amount. Hence, under these circumstances, the lender would not be entitled to recover the difference between its bid . . . and the actual value of the property. It would, however, still be able to recover any other damages flowing from the defendants' fraud." ( Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, supra, 10 Cal. 4th at pp. 1247-1248.) The Supreme Court went on to note that in the absence of fraud affecting the bid, a full credit bid precludes recovery by the lender: "To the extent Alliance's full credit bids were not proximately caused by defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations . . ., the full credit bid rule applies, and Alliance's bid would then constitute an irrevocable offer to purchase the property for that amount. Hence, under these circumstances, Alliance would not be entitled to recover the difference between its bid . . . and the actual value of the property. " (Ibid.)