the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. The rule adopts the “bursting bubble” approach: a presumption vanishes when put in question by rebutting evidence. While FRE 301 does not establish the level of proof needed to rebut a presumption, most courts have held that any evidence creating a substantial doubt in the mind of a trier of fact defeats a presumption. Hon. Barry Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual, § 301.3 (2002). Because Cindy Cline presented specific uncontroverted evidence to the contrary— she swears that she used her account for necessities, and that she always planned to repay — the presumption of fraud bursts. See Nunley v. Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As the presumption is overcome, and there is
holding that appellants specific factual denial of receipt was sufficient evidence to defeat the presumption of receipt raised by a docket entry showing mailing holding that denial of receipt of notice of trial did not rebut presumption of trial courts certificate of mailing of notice requiring an evidentiary hearing holding that service of notice of lien statements on homeowners was sufficient even though endorsement stated return receipt requested instead of return receipt requested showing address where delivered where service was handled in same manner and where homeowners received and signed for address shown on return receipt moreover actual notice was sufficient under statute holding that receipt of a prp letter was insufficient to defeat coverage under the lossinprogress rule holding that upon receipt of the important notice a conclusive presumption of notice was established