Ray & Lainie Whitmire

The Whitmires’ attorney Jim Walker filed a notice of appeal with the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, Texas, Friday, May 13, beating a 30-day deadline.

January’s jury verdict and 236th District Court Judge Tom Lowe’s April 15 final judgment, overturning that verdict, also took place in Fort Worth.

A clerk with the Second District Court of Appeal said both sides in the case have until Aug. 15 to submit briefs to the court. The earliest the appeal might be heard is this fall, the clerk said. Many appeals take several months before an appellate court rulings takes place.

National Cutting Horse Association Executive Director Jeff Hooper, NCHA President Chris Benedict and Walker all had no immediate comments when contacted Thursday by Quarter Horse News.

Following a January trial in Judge Lowe’s Fort Worth courtroom, 10 of 12 jurors found the NCHA guilty on two charges relating to its treatment of Lainie Whitmire, who along with her husband, Ray, is a former NCHA member suspended by the association.

The jury determined NCHA officials “falsely imprisoned” Lainie Whitmire during the 2004 NCHA Futurity, before she was scheduled to compete. They took her to a room in Will Rogers Coliseum and allegedly did not allow her to leave while questioning her about her Amateur status as a cutting horse rider. The jury determined the NCHA later broke an oral agreement with Whitmire leading her to believe her suspended NCHA membership and Amateur or Non-Pro status as a cutting horse rider would be restored.

The jury awarded no monetary damages on the false imprisonment claim, but it assessed $70,000 damages against the NCHA on the charge regarding the alleged oral agreement.

On April 15, in his final ruling regarding the case, Judge Lowe overturned the jury verdict. He instead ordered the Whitmires to reimburse the NCHA $347,00 in legal expenses. Before the trial, Judge Lowe had previously dismissed the portion of the case regarding the alleged oral agreement, ruling there was not enough evidence to take that part of the case to trial. The Second District Court of Appeals later reversed that decision and determined a jury should make that determination – but it’s ruling also indicated a lack of sufficient evidence could possibly be determined following the completed trial.

There is no way to know at this time when the appellate court will consider the case.