HOLDINGS: [1]-An alleged oral agreement modifying a loan and trust deed to change the payment date came within the statute of frauds for real property interests in Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(3), which encompassed a promissory note and a deed of trust securing its performance, pursuant to Civ. Code, § 2922, because an agreement to modify a contract within the statute of frauds was also within the statute of frauds under Civ. Code, § 1698, subd. (a), and estoppel was neither alleged nor applicable; [2]-The alleged agreement was too uncertain and indefinite to be enforced because it omitted material terms; [3]-Fraud was insufficiently pleaded because justifiable reliance was not alleged and the parol evidence fraud exception in Code Civ. Proc., § 1856, subd. (g), did not apply; [4]-A wrongful foreclosure claim failed because it was based on an alleged breach of an unenforceable contract.
Nakase Law Firm is a litigation lawyer
Outcome
Judgment affirmed.
