Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Massachusetts

Re: Burden of Proof?

MESSAGE 1 of 2:

Gee whiz, what was your court date? Yesterday (Thursday)? I hope this reply doesn't come too late to be of any use.

You've accurately identified the legal issues involved. First, though, by saying it was a gift, and then saying "there was no written contract saying she would be [paid] back" you come across a little dishonest. If it was a gift, why were you paying it back? If you say that there's no written contract on something you're not denying that there was an unwritten contract, and those are as binding as written contracts. The unwritten contract could just be an agreement you reached or whatever. The real question there is whether or not it was a gift, and it appears that at some point there was an unwritten contract to pay it back, which either belies your statement that it was a gift or at best indicates a change of classification from gift to loan that you two agreed upon at some point. You shouldn't try to go back on that agreement now.

Moreover, if you go argue that it was a gift and she's in court trying to collect on a loan, the judge isn't all that likely to believe it really was a gift and isn't likely to want to say it was just because you say so. It will look like a difference of opinion and between the two, if I were a judge, I'd say that nobody is entitled to get something for free. ("The law abhors a windfall" might be the legal principle that covers that.)

CONTINUED NEXT MESSAGE ...

Re: Burden of Proof?

MESSAGE 2 of 2:

CONTINUATION OF PRIOR MESSAGE:

The other legal issue you've identified quite well is burden of proof. SHE has the burden of proof, at least initially. There are things in the law that shift the burden to the other side, and, I'm sorry to say I don't know but it might be that admitting you agreed to pay it back would shift the burden of whether or not you paid it back over to you. I don't THINK that's the case, but I'm not sure. However, first of all, in small claims, the magistrates go very much on gut instinct and aren't particularly beholden to the ivory tower rules of law, so they won't think explicitly about who carries the burden. More importantly, even if she carries the burden, she can meet the burden by saying "he never paid it" and being more credible than you saying "I paid it all back." The burden rules only carry a case (in a court where the law is adhered to strictly) when little or no evidence is put on by the party that carries the burden, for example, if she never mentioned that you hadn't paid her.

Any magistrate would have to ask why she'd bother taking the two days off, one to come file and another for the trial / hearing, to collect a mere $300 if she wasn't really owed it. That doesn't mean she isn't a liar or a fruitcake, but it would help if you could help the magistrate realize how this case came before him. Did she forget that you paid her? Are you a detailed person with excellent memory (as your detailed recollection of the times and places and amounts you paid indicates, not to mention the fact that you have 40 years experience as an accountant working for the Pope ... ) and/or that she's a space cadet, or a foresaken or scorned ex-lover?

Anyway, if there's any possibility you could call her up and correct an innocent mistake, and remind her that you've paid, without losing your cool, you should. Don't give her so much information that she can better prepare her case against you, though, and don't call if you don't think there's any chance of getting this settled in advance of the court date, but otherwise call her!