This matter came before the Court on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s adversary proceeding. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud as required by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7009 and that the statute of frauds prohibited the enforcement of the Defendant’s supplemental oral promise. The parties also disagreed as to whether the prohibition against parol evidence barred the Plaintiff’s introduction of the oral promise to prove fraudulent inducement. The Court found that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Rule 7009, granting the Defendant’s motion in part. The Court allowed the Plaintiff fourteen days to amend his complaint or the adversary proceeding will otherwise be dismissed. The Court also found that both the statute of frauds and parol evidence did not apply in this case because the Plaintiff has elected to pursue a fraud claim, not a breach of contract claim, and, therefore, denied the Defendant’s motion on her other grounds.