” Id. ¶ 40, 956 P.2d at 903. In Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, 672 P.2d 1168, the Supreme Court found:JOHN F. FISCHER
Appellants next argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on fraud. Under Oklahoma law, fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or is made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, with the intention that it be acted upon by a party to his or her detriment. Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). As the jury was instructed, fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
“Fraud is never presumed, but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). 19.
To be actionable, however, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that a fraud must contain a "false material representation made as to a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth [or falsity], with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Okla. 1983). Accord Rogers v. Meiser, 68 P.3d 967 (Okla. 2003).
Actual fraud requires reliance regardless of the nature of the act or statement constituting a misrepresentation. See, e.g., Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983); D H Co., Inc. v. Shultz, 579 P.2d 821, 824 (Okla. 1978).
Rogers v. Meiser, 2003 OK 6, ¶ 17, 68 P.3d 967, 977; Dawson v. Tindell, 1987 OK 10, ¶ 5, 733 P.2d 407, 408.Rogers v. Meiser, supra note 25, at ¶ 17, at 977; Brown v. Founders Bank and Trust Co., 1994 OK 130, ¶ 12 n. 17, 890 P.2d 855, 862 n. 17; Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 8, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171. "Actual fraud is always a question of fact." 15 O.S. 2001 § 60[ 15-60].
" Id. ¶ 40, 956 P.2d at 903. In Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, 672 P.2d 1168, the Supreme Court found: The basis of fraudulent misrepresentation is the creation of a false impression and damage sustained as a natural and probable consequence of the act charged.
¶ 21 The relief sought by Appellee in the form of an annulment is based on a claim of fraud. "Fraud is never presumed, but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 8, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171. The testimony of the parties conflicted on the issue of whether Appellant fraudulently induced Appellee to marry her. "When fraud is properly alleged by one party and denied by the other party, the existence or non-existence of fraud becomes a question of fact."
¶ 14 "Actionable fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth [or falsity], with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 1983 OK 108, ¶ 7, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (footnote omitted). Constructive fraud is "the concealment of material facts which one is bound under the circumstances to disclose."
IBC is correct that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that "[a]ctionable fraud consists of a false material representation made as a positive assertion which is known either to be false, or made recklessly without knowledge of the truth, with the intention that it be acted upon, and which is relied upon by a party to his/her detriment." Tice v. Tice, 672 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Okla. 1983). But upon a review of the record, we think a jury could have found that the fraudulent assertion was the tax disclosure drafted to prevent inquiry into the material facts and hinder the Colliers from discovering the deductions.