The District Court was troubled by this case because the property owners had “tried their best to work with [the bank] in modifying their mortgage.” Slip op. 14. But the summary judgment evidence showed that the proposed modification agreement specified it was not effective until signed and the statute of frauds precluded any oral modification. Slip op. at 9-11. Thus, the District Court entered summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and wrongful foreclosure claims. Id. at 9-19.
