consent and action where the fiduciary was ignorant of the new will and the testator was strong-willed. Id. at 194-95(¶ 18). That being the case here, we likewise affirm the finding of independent consent and action. ¶ 21. In sum, there was substantial credible evidence to support the chancellor’s finding that Halla overcame the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. ¶ 22. Nevertheless, Trask and Young insist that there was conflicting evidence, so Halla cannot be said to have borne his burden of proof. That evidence is in conflict means only that there is a triable issue. It does not prevent a trier of fact from assessing whether one side has proven its case by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Bacot v. Duby, 724 So.2d 410, 419(¶44) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 23. Trask and Young next urge that whether
holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence holding that whether adverse possession was proven by clear and convincing evidence is a factual determination made by the chancellor holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied