However, in other civil arenas similar to fraud claims, such as undue influence, this Court has said that to overcome a presumption by clear and convincing evidence, "something more than the self-serving testimony of the recipient" is required. In re Est. of Hall, 32 So.3d 506, 520 (¶50) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009); see Wright v. State, 758 So.2d 497, 498 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) ("Wright had no evidence to corroborate his version of the events beyond his own self-serving testimony.").

The defendants also emphasize that we have held that in some circumstances extrinsic or parol evidence regarding the principal's wishes may be sufficient to uphold an attorney-in-fact's gift to himself from his principal's property. See In re Estate of Hall, 32 So.3d 506, 511, 518–20 (¶¶ 11, 41–51) (Miss.Ct.App.2009); but see id. at 520–22 (¶¶ 53–61) (King, C.J., dissenting) (reaching the opposite conclusion). However, Hall is distinguishable because the POA in that case did not expressly prohibit such self-dealing.