inferences should be drawn against Lynn Smith, based on David Smith’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment, with regard to all issues concerning the Trust, the Stock Account, the Checking Account, and the Vero Beach house Pl. Mem. of Law (Dkt. No. 74) at 1. These contentions, however, appear to confuse evidentiary inferences with issue preclusion. An inference permits a finder of fact to conclude that evidence of a particular fact exists which is unfavorable to the party against whom the inference is drawn. See Henning v. Union Pacific R. Co., 530 F.3d 1206, 1219-20 (10th Cir.2008); An adverse inference is permissive, not mandatory, and an adverse inference alone is insufficient to establish entitlement to relief. See JHP & Associates, LLC v. N.L.R.B., 360 F.3d 904, 910 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); 3M v. Pribyl, 259 F.3d 587, 606 n. 5 (7th
holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse recognizing that a vital fact may not be established by piling inference upon inference holding that adverse inference rule is permissive