Opinion ID: 1935139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standard of proof in fraud cases.

Text: Defendants claim that the correct standard of proof in fraud cases is proof by clear and convincing evidence. However, both cases cited by defendants in their brief [13] involved actions to avoid written instruments whose entry was induced by fraud. Martin v. Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co., 279 Minn. 129, 155 N.W.2d 744 (1968), cited by plaintiffs, appears to overrule those cases by implication. Martin further states that the burden of proof in fraud action for damages has always been proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Cf. Rother v. Hiniker, 208 Minn. 405, 294 N.W. 644 (1940). We find no reason to apply different burden of proof in the present case involving recovery of secret profits. Thus, the trial court was correct in its instruction.