Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 454

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-21-590

VERONICA GAMBLE

APPELLANT

V.

CAROL GAMBLE

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered November 9, 2022

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

SEVENTEENTH DIVISION

[NO. 60CV-21-2822]

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 
2

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, 
3

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.