Opinion ID: 2198154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rebutting the Legal Presumption of a Gift Burden of Proof

Text: In order to rebut a legal presumption, courts uniformly have applied an intermediate standard of proof that is more strict than the preponderance of the evidence standard but not as strict as the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that pertains in the criminal law. [11] Delaware courts, in many different contexts, have expressed the burden of proof that the adversely affected party must satisfy in order to rebut a legal presumption to be clear and convincing evidence. [12] The clear and convincing standard requires evidence that produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of [the] factual contentions [is] `highly probable.' [13] Similarly, the pattern civil jury instruction used by the Delaware Superior Court provides, in part, To establish proof by clear and convincing evidence means to prove something that is highly probable, reasonably certain, and free from serious doubt. [14] We believe that this pattern jury instruction is a proper articulation of the standard. Although neither this Court in Hudak I nor the Court of Chancery on remand explicitly referred to the term, we hold that Procek was required to rebut the presumption of a gift by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, Procek was required to present sufficient evidence to persuade the Court of Chancery that it was highly probable that she and her husband did not intend in 1978 to make an unconditional inter vivos gift of the property to Helen. To prove intent in the absence of any contemporaneous documentation, a party generally may offer two types of evidence. First, the parties themselves may testify about (or provide other extrinsic evidence of) their intent at the time of the transaction. Second, the parties' conduct after the transaction, in some cases, may shed light on the parties' contemporaneous understanding of the original agreement. [15]