Intrinsic fraud is not an affirmative misrepresentation, but instead occurs when a party during litigation has an opportunity to protect oneself from their adversary’s fraud and has unreasonably failed to do so. Compare extrinsic fraud. The difference with extrinsic fraud is important, because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to collaterally attack a prior judgment. The classic example, a California state court in Pour Le Babe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. pointed out, is perjury. The court explains (citing precedent) that perjury is the classic example because “[the intrinsic fraud committer] knows that a false claim or defense can be supported in no other way; that the very object of the trial is, if possible, to ascertain the truth from the conflict of the evidence, and that, necessarily, the truth or falsity of the testimony must be determined in deciding the issue. The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy."
[Last updated in December of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]