Veronica Gamble v. Carol Gamble ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 454ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-21-590
VERONICA GAMBLE Opinion Delivered November 9, 2022
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CV-21-2822]
CAROL GAMBLE
APPELLEE HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Veronica Gamble appeals the judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court
dismissing her complaint after a bench trial finding she failed to establish by a preponderance
of the evidence that she was entitled to relief on her forgery claim. We affirm.
This pro se appeal involves a three-and-a-half-acre parcel of land deeded to appellee,
Carol Gamble, by her father, Elvin Gamble. Carol lived on the property and took care of
Mr. Gamble until his death in 2018. Mr. Gamble’s last will and testament appointed Carol
as the executor of his estate and ordered his entire estate be shared equally among his
beneficiaries, which included appellant, Veronica Gamble. Following Mr. Gamble’s death,
Carol probated the estate and was ordered to perform a title search to ensure Mr. Gamble
did not own any real estate at the time of his death. First National Title Company performed
the search and found that Mr. Gamble did not own any real estate at the time of his death,
and the land in question was vested in Carol by virtue of a warranty deed dated September
9, 2010.
On May 6, 2021, Veronica filed a complaint alleging Carol had forged Mr. Gamble’s
signature on the 2010 warranty deed, stating the forgery of the warranty deed was evidenced
by the use of an online legal form prepared by Carol, and tax records demonstrating that
from the time Mr. Gamble purchased the land until his death, he was the only person who
paid taxes on the property.
Veronica’s complaint was set for a bench trial on August 16, 2021, via Zoom, and
both parties appeared pro se. Veronica alleged that while Mr. Gamble was sick, Carol, as his
power of attorney, signed the warranty deed herself without Mr. Gamble’s knowledge, which
went against the express wishes of his will. Veronica asked the court to declare the deed void
and divide the land according to the will. Prior to the hearing, Veronica provided exhibits
to the Pulaski County court reporter in compliance with the circuit court’s Zoom hearing
procedures, and those exhibits were marked for purposes of the record. During argument at
the hearing, Veronica referenced the exhibits but never moved to introduce them into
evidence. On August 18, 2021, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Veronica’s
claim, and from that order comes this appeal.
Our standard of review following a bench trial is whether the circuit court’s findings
are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Williamson v.
Williamson, 2018 Ark. App. 236, 548 S.W.3d 816. A finding is clearly erroneous when,
2
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.Veronica argues there was sufficient evidence to support her forgery claim as shown
bythe exhibits she provided to the Pulaski County court reporter. However, these exhibits
were never properly introduced into evidence. A litigant is required to offer an exhibit into
evidence for the court’s consideration, and only if the exhibit is admitted may it be
considered for evidentiary purposes. Although Veronica’s exhibits were marked by the court
reporter prior to the hearing, premarking an exhibit only indicates a reasonable expectation
to introduce the exhibit and does not replace the actual offering of the exhibit into evidence
at trial. Therefore, because Veronica’s exhibits were never properly introduced, the only
evidence the circuit court had to consider was Veronica’s testimony versus Carol’s testimony.
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys with respect to complying
with court rules. Lucas v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 365, 423 S.W.3d 580. By failing to properly
introduce her exhibits into evidence, Veronica failed to meet her evidentiary standard; thus,
the circuit court’s decision to dismiss her complaint was not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
HARRISON, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.
Veronica Gamble, pro se appellant.
Terrence Cain, for appellee.
3