“[F]raud requires a knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. Fraud requires [a] knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment.” (See Black's Law Dictionary 731 (9th ed. 2009); Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, No. 3-848 / 13-0540, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2013).)
“A false promise may constitute fraud when made for the purpose of deceiving the party to whom made and when the latter justifiably relies thereon.” (See International Milling Co. v. Gisch (1965) 258 Iowa 63, 72.)
“Fraud must be established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.” (See McGough v. Gabus (1995) 526 N.W.2d 328, 331; Beeck v. Aquaslide `N' Dive Corp. (1984) 350 N.W.2d 149, 155; Lockard v. Carson (1980) 287 N.W.2d 871, 873-74.)
“In a common law action for fraud, the following elements must be proven:
(See Rosen v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1995) 539 N.W.2d 345, 349; Hoefer v. Wisconsin Educ. Ass'n Ins. Trust (1991) 470 N.W.2d 336, 340; Garren v. First Realty, Ltd. (1992) 481 N.W.2d 335, 338; Hall v. Wright (1968) 261 Iowa 758, 766, 156 N.W.2d 661, 666.)
“To bring a fraud claim, the plaintiff must have justifiably relied on the false representation.” (See Dier v. Peters (2012) 815 N.W.2d 1, 9; Spreitzer v. Hawkeye State Bank (2009) 775, 737 N.W.2d 573.)
“[T]he justified standard followed in Iowa means the reliance does not necessarily need to conform to the standard of a reasonably prudent person, but depends on the qualities and characteristics of the particular plaintiff and the specific surrounding circumstances.” (See id; Lockard v. Carson (1980) 287 N.W.2d 871, 878 [indicating that the justifiable reliance element is viewed in light of plaintiff's own information and intelligence].)
“Still, the individual to whom the fraudulent misrepresentation is made is ‘required to use his senses, and cannot recover if he blindly relies on a misrepresentation the falsity of which would be patent to him if he had utilized his opportunity to make a cursory examination or investigation.’” (See id.)
“The burden is on the plaintiff to establish fraud by a preponderance of clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.” (See Irons v. Community State Bank (1990) 461 N.W.2d 849, 854; Robinson v. Perpetual Services Corp. (1987) 412 N.W.2d 562, 565; Cornell v. Cornell v. Wunschel (1987) 408 N.W.2d 369, 374.)
It is well settled that “one who fraudulently makes a misrepresentation of fact, opinion, intention or law for the purpose of inducing another to act or refrain from action in reliance upon it, is subject to liability to the other in deceit for pecuniary loss caused to him by his justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation.” (See RUHL RUHL REAL ESTATE v. KENT, (2010)791 N.W.2d 428; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525, at 55 (1977).)
It is also well settled that “a person is as guilty of actual fraud when in conscious disregard of the truth or falsity of facts his representations are predicated upon he makes such representations to induce action and the party to whom they are made suffers damage by taking the action sought to be induced in reliance upon those representations as surely as if he had intended that very result.” (See Committee on Professional Ethics v. Wright (1970) 178 N.W.2d 749, 751; Hall v. Wright (1968) 261 Iowa 758, 772.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
