Opinion ID: 697655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Burden Required to Prove Fraud

Text: 62 The defendants argue strenuously, and the district court stated, that the plaintiffs were required to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. The plaintiffs respond that under applicable Massachusetts law fraud need not be shown by anything more than the ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard applicable to civil cases in general. Review of Massachusetts law indicates that the plaintiffs are right. 17 63 In Callahan v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc., 372 Mass. 582, 363 N.E.2d 240 (Mass.1977), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) commented on the burden of proof applicable to a libel action governed by Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Recognizing that the Supreme Court required clear and convincing proof in a libel case, the SJC nonetheless noted that, 64 the words clear and convincing proof had not been discussed in our cases [other than in the libel context] because the phrase had not been used theretofore in this Commonwealth. Indeed, because of the vagueness of an intermediate standard of proof, we have not looked with favor on the use of such a standard. 65 Callahan, 372 Mass. at 583, 363 N.E.2d at 241. We have not found any Massachusetts case stating that a clear and convincing standard should be applied in a common law fraud case, nor have we found any indication that the SJC has, since Callahan, looked with greater favor on introducing a clear and convincing standard of proof to cases where none otherwise exists. See Paul J. Liacos, Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence 38-39 (5th ed. 1981) (stating that the burden of proof in Massachusetts civil cases is by a preponderance of the evidence and listing those few issues, not including fraud, where a higher standard is required, including proof of a gift causa mortis, contents of a lost will, irregularity of official proceedings, and malice in a defamation action); see also 9 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law Sec. 2498 (Chadbourn rev. 1981) (noting that clear and convincing standard is commonly applied in cases of fraud, but failing to cite, in a comprehensive list of authorities, any Massachusetts case applying this standard). We conclude, therefore, that Massachusetts has not adopted a clear and convincing standard in cases of fraud.