Plaintiff alleged that before he entered into a HELOC in 2005, the lender orally promised him that its maturity in ten years, the lender would refinance the loan or extend its term.  The lender didn’t and foreclosed instead when the plaintiff didn’t repay all amounts due at maturity of the loan.  Held:  (1) The statute of frauds barred plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.  A real estate-secured loan or its modification fall within the scope of the statute of frauds.  The alleged oral promise was a modification of the written loan terms and so was barred by the statute of frauds even though the modification preceded the written terms.  (2) The oral promise was also unenforceable because none of the basic terms of the refinance or extension were specified.  (3) The fraud claim was not properly alleged because only conclusions and no supporting facts were alleged to show defendant did not to perform when it made the oral promise.  It’s non-performance 10 years later under changed conditions doesn’t show earlier intent not to perform as promised.  (4) The complaint also failed to allege justifiable reliance.  It is not reasonable to rely on an oral promise to refinance ten years hence with no indication of what any of the refinancing terms will be since financial conditions can change radically in a decade.