In other words, fraudulent or wrongful conduct may be inferred from other evidence.Foodland Distribs. v. Al-Naimi, 220 Mich. App. 453, 457-58, 559 N.W.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1996) ( citing Hi-Way Motor Co. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 398 Mich. 330, 336; 247 N.W.2d 813 (1976); Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380, 384; 295 N.W. 194 (1940)) (emphasis in original). The party who pursues a claim for fraud has the burden of proving damages with reasonable certainty.
"[F]raud may be established by circumstantial evidence." Foodland Distrib v Al-Naimi, 220 Mich App 453, 458; 559 NW2d 379 (1996); citing Goldberg v Goldberg, 295 Mich 380, 384; 295 NW 194 (1940). A fraudulent statement is one "that the insured knew that [ ] false at the time it was made or that [ ] was made recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth."
However, fraud may be established by circumstantial evidence. Goldberg v Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380, 384; 295 N.W. 194 (1940). In other words, fraudulent or wrongful conduct may be inferred from other evidence.
Brown v. Dean , 52 Mich. 267, 271, 17 N.W. 837 (1883). See also Goldberg v. Goldberg , 295 Mich. 380, 384, 295 N.W. 194 (1940) ("The burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it. Fraud is never presumed, nor is it to be lightly inferred.") (citations omitted).
We do not think that plaintiff's testimony when weighed against these circumstances constitutes the preponderance of evidence which she must produce to win her case. See Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380, 295 N.W. 194 (1940); Russell v. Russell, 130 Kan. 40, 285 P. 633 (1930); Wright v. Nelson, 125 Colo. 217, 242 P.2d 243 (1952). The record discloses that the plaintiff had brought a suit for divorce against James A. Housley prior to the institution of the present suit.
We recognize that this Court hears equity cases de novo on appeal, and is not bound by the findings of fact of the trial court. Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380. We also recognize that the judge before whom the matter was heard had the advantage of seeing the parties and hearing them testify.
We have repeatedly said that fraud will not be presumed and cannot be lightly inferred, but must be established by a preponderance of evidence. Mesh v. Citrin, 299 Mich. 527; Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380; Hilliker v. Jewel Oil Gas Co., 277 Mich. 96; Allison v. Ward, 63 Mich. 128. In considering the question of fraud we must determine whether or not the relationship of attorney and client existed between defendant Harry Pell and plaintiffs.
Conceding that the burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it, and it is never presumed nor lightly inferred, fraud need not be shown by direct proof but may be proven by inference from facts and circumstances. Detroit Trust Co. v. Hartwick, 278 Mich. 139; Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380. A wide latitude is allowed in the admission of testimony where the existence of fraud is an issue. Taylor v. Ward, 264 Mich. 118; Daugherty v. Park, 289 Mich. 561.
Plaintiff alleges that he was induced to purchase the good will and certain personal property and lease the station by reason of defendants' false and fraudulent representations, and the burden is upon plaintiff to establish such fraud. In Goldberg v. Goldberg, 295 Mich. 380, 384, we said: "The burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it. John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter, 291 Mich. 708. Fraud is never presumed, Rossman v. Hutchinson, 289 Mich. 577, nor is it to be lightly inferred.