It’s hard to believe that a stranger might make such a gift, but it does sometimes happen. It is hard also to believe that a stranger would make a loan of a large amount of money to someone without getting the loan agreement in writing, but it sometimes happens, too. So both are hard to believe, and I don’t think one is necessarily harder to believe in the abstract than the other. The fact remains that the guy seeking the money back is the one with the burden of proof. He has to come forward with enough to convince a jury or judge that he has a right to get the money back. If his only evidence on that is his own testimony, that’s a problem since it is obviously self-serving. The same problem exists, of course, for the OP if his testimony is all he has. So, absent something other than just the conflicting testimony of the two people involved, it comes down to which of them the jury or judge believes more. Ties go to the defendant since the plaintiff has the burden to prove the case. In my view, were I on the jury, unless there was something really compelling in the story told by the plaintiff, I’d likely say he hasn’t proven his case and go with the defendant. I just have a real hard time believing someone is really going to be stupid enough to make a large loan to a stranger and not get the agreement in writing.

