In a deficiency judgment action, settlement agreement was "credit agreement" for purposes of this section and was unenforceable because it was not reduced to writing. Pima Financial Serv. Corp. v. Selby, 820 P.2d 1124 (Colo. App. 1991).

A federally chartered bank is a bank for purposes of subsection (1)(d), and nothing indicates that the term "bank" is limited to state-chartered banks. The definition of "bank" in § 11-101-401 (5) does not apply to this section. To import that definition would be contrary to the obligation to apply this section broadly. Premier Farm Credit, PCA v. W-Cattle, LLC, 155 P.3d 504 (Colo. App. 2006).

A representation or promise made in connection with a credit agreement involving more than $25,000 is invalid unless it is in writing. As a matter of law, reliance placed on oral representations or promises cannot be reasonable or justifiable. Norwest Bank Lakewood v. GCC P'ship, 886 P.2d 299 (Colo. App. 1994).

Contract providing for financing in excess of $25,000 is a "credit agreement" for purposes of this section, and section applies to any agreement to extend credit regardless of the context in which the agreement was formed. Univex Int'l, Inc. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 902 P.2d 877 (Colo. App. 1995), aff'd, 914 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1996).

Any tort claim relating to an oral credit agreement involving a principal amount greater than $25,000 is barred by this section. Instead of encouraging tortious behavior by lenders, such an interpretation comports with intent of the general assembly that borrowers and lenders must be sure to reduce agreement to writing to ensure enforceability of any claims they may have in the future. Hewitt v. Pitkin County Bank and Trust Co., 931 P.2d 456 (Colo. App. 1995).

This section, requiring a signature, and not § 38-10-112, controls in cases involving a credit agreement. Univex Int'l, Inc. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 902 P.2d 877 (Colo. App. 1995), aff'd on other grounds, 914 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1996).

The phrase "action or claim" in subsection (2) is not limited to claims for affirmative recovery. It is not intended to cover only claims for relief while excluding defenses to liability based on oral representations. Accordingly, this section applies to a claim of fraudulent inducement that seeks rescission of the transaction on which the creditor's claim is based. Premier Farm Credit, PCA v. W-Cattle, LLC, 155 P.3d 504 (Colo. App. 2006).

This section specifically precludes assertion of a promissory estoppel claim to enforce an unsigned credit agreement. Univex Int'l, Inc. v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., 902 P.2d 877 (Colo. App. 1995), aff'd, 914 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1996).

There is no basis to distinguish between promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel in this context, given that this section must be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. Premier Farm Credit, PCA v. W-Cattle, LLC, 155 P.3d 504 (Colo. App. 2006).

Borrowers made co-makers their agents in executing future modifications of a note, in effect, by consenting to future modifications of the note in the original instrument. Modifications to note that were reduced to writing and executed by co-makers met the purpose and requirements of this section. Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Haag Ltd. P'ship, 929 P.2d 42 (Colo. App. 1996).

The terms "debtor" and "creditor" do not require a direct borrower-lender relationship under the credit agreement statute of frauds. The statute applies to a "credit agreement" that arose from oral representations made between lenders to the same borrower. Schoen v. Morris, 15 P.3d 1094 (Colo. 2000); Lang v. Bank of Durango, 78 P.3d 1121 (Colo. App. 2003).

A mortgage broker does not fall under the definition of "financial institution". Fisher v. 1st Consumers Funding, Inc., 160 P.3d 321 (Colo. App. 2007).

A claim for unjust enrichment that arises from an oral assertion regarding a credit agreement is barred by the credit agreement statute of frauds. Legislative history and case law strongly disfavor any type of claim involving oral credit agreements, and the credit agreement statute of frauds expressly bars all claims relating to a credit agreement unless the credit agreement is in writing. Lang v. Bank of Durango, 78 P.3d 1121 (Colo. App. 2003).