Brenda Gordon v. Sherry Wall, 273 So. 3d 717

Mary Saunders Waller (age 90, legally blind, hard of hearing) executed a deed on Jan. 22, 2015 transferring ~39.25 acres to her daughter Brenda Gordon and son‑in‑law Craig Gordon; the Gordons had acted as her caregivers and had a confidential relationship with her.
The Gordons had Waller cosign a $44,000 loan using her assets as collateral; they handled logistics for the land transfer (drove her to the attorney, hired the surveyor) and did not notify other family members.
A conservatorship was opened for Waller on Sept. 7, 2016; she died May 26, 2017; the estate filed to set aside the deed, and the chancery court granted relief and set the deed aside on Nov. 8, 2017.
At trial, the chancery court excluded testimony from Waller’s physicians and her attorney based on asserted ex parte contacts by the Gordons’ counsel; the Gordons objected to exclusion on appeal.
The chancery court found a confidential relationship and that the Gordons failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence; the trial court’s exclusion rulings and denial of a Rule 59 motion were central on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of physicians’ testimony for ex parte contacts was reversible error	Estate: Exclusion proper under Scott and M.R.E. 503(f) due to ex parte contacts	Gordons: Exclusion improper; no opportunity to present those witnesses	Court: Affirmed exclusion; Gordons failed to preserve via offer of proof, so no reversible error
Whether ex parte‑contact rule extends to attorneys	Estate: Rule should apply to prevent improper communications	Gordons: Rule should not bar attorney testimony; exclusion was unfair and untimely objection	Court: Will not extend Scott to attorneys (rule limited to medical providers) but found Gordons waived the issue by conceding at trial and failing to timely preserve
Whether denial of Rule 59 motion (new trial / amend) was abuse of discretion	Gordons: Late proffer attached to Rule 59 showing attorney’s testimony would have helped; they were ambushed	Estate: Gordons should have raised issue at trial; Rule 59 cannot be used to raise issues not preserved	Court: No abuse of discretion; Rule 59 cannot be used to raise issues that could and should have been made at trial
Whether deed should be set aside for undue influence	Estate: Confidential relationship + circumstances support presumption of undue influence	Gordons: Waller was competent and intended transfer; caretaking justified transfer	Court: Deed set aside—chancery court’s finding that Gordons couldn’t rebut presumption was affirmed

Scott v. Flynt, 704 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 1996) (establishes ex parte‑contact rule for medical providers and bases it on M.R.E. 503(f))
U. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Foster, 107 So. 3d 149 (Miss. 2013) (proffer requirement; without an offer of proof appellate review of excluded testimony is impossible)
Brown v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 749 So. 2d 948 (Miss. 1999) (trial court cannot be put in error on matters not presented to it)
McNeese v. McNeese, 119 So. 3d 264 (Miss. 2013) (standard and discretion for Rule 59 new trial or amendment)
Barriffe v. Estate of Nelson, 153 So. 3d 613 (Miss. 2014) (recognizing broad discretionary corrective role of new‑trial motions)
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59 cannot be used to raise arguments that could and should have been made before judgment)