What is the standard of proof for a claim of fraud?

In a parallel series of decisions, however, generally involving actions at law for damages caused by fraud, this court squarely held that the correct standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. In one of the [19 Cal.3d 288] earliest of such cases this court stated that 'Issues of fact in civil cases are determined by a preponderance of testimony; and this rule applies as well to cases in which fraud is imputed as to any other.' (Ford v. Chambers (1861) 19 Cal. 143, 144.)

Soon thereafter the court reaffirmed the ruling and clarified its relationship with the 'presumption' against fraud. In Bullard v. His Creditors (1880) 56 Cal. 600, the plaintiff apparently brought an action to be discharged from his debts and the defense of fraud was raised. The court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff on the ground of prejudicial error in the instruction on the standard of proof of fraud. The instruction told the jury in part that 'As an allegation of fraud is against the presumption of honesty, it requires stronger proofs than if no such presumption existed,' and hence that 'The proof must be clear and satisfactory. It must be so strong and cogent as to satisfy a man of sound judgment of the truth of the allegations.' (Id. at p. 601.) The court

Page 641