Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

I'm going to small claims court to sue my brother-in-law for a $2,000 loan he refuses to pay back. My question is: Can you win a case if the only "EVIDENCE" is a LOGICAL ARGUMENT?

My only "evidence" will be the following: Upon receiving life insurance money from my soulmate in heaven, I wrote two checks each to both my bro-in-law and sis-in-law. The first check of $3,000 was a gift, while the second check of $2,000 was a loan.So both my bro-in-law and sis-in-law each received $5,000 total, in which $2,000 was a LOAN (in other words, they both got exactly the same amount).

Since my sis-in-law has been honoring her agreement, she has written checks to me in REPAYMENT, which I plan to make a copy of to present to the court as evidence that $2.000 was a LOAN, just like I gave my bro-in-law the same amount as a LOAN. I also plan to make a copy of the life insurance balance statements which show I gave both my sis-in-law and bro-in-law each exactly same amount of money--two separate checks of $2,000 and $3,000 to each of them. So the logical argument is if I gave my sister $3,000 as a gift and another $2,000 as a LOAN, then it DOES NOT make sense if my bro-in-law were to lie saying both of his checks were gifts (as opposed to $2,000 being a loan).

Anyway, do you think this truthful and logical argument would be effective in court?


Asked on 1/11/11, 11:16 am

1 Answer from Attorneys
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

A logical argument is not evidence. And the argument you describe is not particularly logical.

You do have evidence, though. It sounds like you can prove you received money through insurance, and it sounds like you can prove you wrote checks to your brother-in-law and to your sister-in-law. It also sounds like you can show your sister-in-law has written checks to you Unfortunately, that evidence does not support the conclusion that one of the checks to your brother-in-law was a loan. (It doesn't even prove that the check to your sister-in-law was a loan; all it proves is that she has since written you checks in the same amount. That fact *suggests* that you made a loan, but there are other plausible explanations too. And while it might be persuasive evidence that you made a loan *to her*, it would be far less persuasive about the check *to him*.)

I'm afraid the fact that you transferred $2,000 to each of these people does not support the inference that you did so under the same terms. It is very possible that you made a gift to one and a loan to the other. Remember that you will be the one with the burden of proof. If that's the best argument you have, I don't think you're likely to win.

But perhaps you have even more evidence. After all, testimony is a type of evidence. If you can testify that you and your brother-in-law agreed the $2,000 check was a loan, that will be very good evidence on your behalf. If the loan to your sister-in-law was part of the same transaction, then evidence (preferably in the form of her testimony) that it was a loan will also help you.

Even that will not be enough, though. In addition to showing that you lent the money to your brother-in-law, you also have to show the terms on which you and he agreed it would be repaid. Additionally, you will have to show that he has failed to live up to those terms.

To illustrate this point, if you can show an agreement that he would repay the money by December 31, 2010, then it will follow that he has breached the agreement. But if you instead agreed he would repay by December 31, 2011, it will follow that he hasn't.

Read more
Answered on 1/16/11, 6:12 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in California