California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1698 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing.

(b)A contract in writing may be modified by an oral agreement to the extent that the oral agreement is executed by the parties.

(c)Unless the contract otherwise expressly provides, a contract in writing may be modified by an oral agreement supported by new consideration. The statute of frauds (Section 1624) is required to be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.

(d)Nothing in this section precludes in an appropriate case the application of rules of law concerning estoppel, oral novation and substitution of a new agreement, rescission of a written contract by an oral agreement, waiver of a provision of a written contract, or oral independent collateral contracts.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 131 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1921–2026 · leading case: Major v. W. Home Ins., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Major v. W. Home Ins., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Western was contractually bound to pay the personal property claim Civil Code section 1698, subdivision (a) provides that “[a] contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing.”

Coldwell Banker & Co. v. Pepper Tree Off. Ctr. Assocs., 106 Cal. App. 3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “) As amended, section 1698 now provides a written contract may be modified by an oral agreement to the extent it is “executed by the parties” (Civ. Code, § 1698, subd. (b)), or supported by consideration and the statute of frauds is satisfied (Civ.”

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 2× “California Civil Code § 1698 provides, in relevant part: (b) A' contract in writing may be modified by an oral agreement to the extent that the oral agreement is executed by the parties.”

Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 236 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1698, subd. (c); Nguyen v. Calhoun (2003) 105 Cal.”

West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 214 Cal. App. 4th 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “(Civ. Code, § 1698, subd. (a).) Though not signed by anyone at Chase Bank, the April 5, 2010 letter bears the Chase Bank letterhead, which suffices as a signature.”

Badie v. Bank of Am., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “) 6 Civil Code section 1698 provides in pertinent part: “A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing” (id.”

Malmstrom v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 180 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 1605 provides; “Any benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred, upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered, or agreed to be suffered, by such person, other than such as he is at the…”

Kashmiri v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “, Civ. Code, § 1698; see also Busch v. Globe Industries (1962) 200 Cal.”

Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1698(c). However, “[t]he statute of frauds (Section 1624) is required to be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.”

Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “(Civ. Code, § 1698.) Thus, California courts have held that forbearance agreements altering a mortgage are covered by the statute of frauds.”

Secrest v. Sec. Nat'l Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(Civ. Code, § 1698, subd. (a) [“A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing.”

Dougherty v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “July 22, 2010) (dismissing a claim that defendant breached an oral contract to provide plaintiffs with, a loan modification because, under the statute of frauds, “absent a writing, there can be no contract, much less a breach of contract”).”

Show all 131 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 1698(a) — 4 cases

San Francisco Apt. Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 142 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Helmut Porkert v. Chevron Corp., 461 F. App'x 245 (4th Cir. 2012).

Dragnea v. Dragnea (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2019).

Wayne R. Gray v. Novell, Inc., 412 F. App'x 199 (11th Cir. 2011).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1698(b) — 6 cases

Nasseri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 147 F. Supp. 3d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Monaghan v. Telecom Italia Sparkle of North Am., Inc., 647 F. App'x 763 (9th Cir. 2016).

Fanucchi & Limi Farms v. United Agri Prods., 414 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

Gen Digit., Inc. v. Sycomp, a Tech. Co., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Ehrenberg v. HALA Enter., LLC (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2022).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1698(c) — 9 cases

Susilo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 796 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Shaterian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 829 F. Supp. 2d 873 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2010). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1698(c). However, “[t]he statute of frauds (Section 1624) is required to be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.”

Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Servs., 740 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2010).

Fanucchi & Limi Farms v. United Agri Prods., 414 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1698(d) — 2 cases

Fanucchi & Limi Farms v. United Agri Prods., 414 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.