Update on the Whitmire/NCHA legal proceedings

I wanted to update you on the Lainie Whitmire case that just went to trial. In order to put things in perspective, I need to first review what happened in this case before the trial. This case arose from Lainie Whitmire losing her amateur, non-pro and membership status in the Association. She filed a lawsuit against the Association in October 2006 seeking reinstatement of membership and non-pro and amateur status and a huge amount of damages. The lawsuit was initiated by Lainie Whitmire and the Association had an obligation to uphold its rules and processes

In March of 2008, the Fort Worth Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of the NCHA dismissing all of Lainie Whitmire's claims except her false imprisonment/emotional distress claim. In July of 2009, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the NCHA on all claims appealed but one. The appeal court affirmed the right of the NCHA to apply and interpret its own rules. Further, the Court found no legal deficiencies in the process provided by the NCHA to Lainie Whitmire before the various and numerous NCHA hearing committees. Finally, the Court refused to interfere with the NCHA's rulings which revoked Lainie Whitmire's amateur and non-professional status and revoked her NCHA membership. The Texas Supreme Court refused to review the action of the court of appeals. The decisions by the trial court, court of appeals and Supreme Court confirm that the NCHA's rules, processes and procedures are fair and meet all legal requirements.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's summary judgment in all respects except for Lainie Whitmire's claim for damages regarding an alleged oral agreement to automatically reinstate her non-professional status at the end of her original six month membership suspension. The Court of Appeals wasn't expressing an opinion that there was a "secret" oral agreement that differed from the terms of the written agreement, they only found that conflicting testimony existed in the record that required further proceedings in the trial court.

After the Court of Appeals decision, there were three claims against the Association remaining for the trial court to deal with. These were Lainie Whitmire's claims for false imprisonment arising from a meeting held at the Will Rogers Coliseum during the 2004 Futurity, her claim for breach of oral agreement, and the claim of Ray Whitmire that his membership was improperly taken away. In August of 2010, the trial judge granted the NCHA's motion for summary judgment against Ray Whitmire and dismissed all the claims Ray Whitmire had made against the NCHA.

On January 10, 2011 the jury trial began on Lainie Whitmire's claims for breach of oral agreement and false imprisonment claims. Because of limited time each day for testimony, the trial lasted two weeks. Several witnesses including Jeff Hooper, Don Bussey, Dave Brian and Eldridge Goins all testified on behalf of the NCHA. I was there for a lot of the trial and thought the testimony of our witnesses showed that the NCHA had done nothing wrong.

The false imprisonment claim related to a meeting Lainie Whitmire and her attorney at the time, were asked to attend during the 2004 Futurity to respond to new information that had been obtained by the Association concerning Lainie Whitmire's non-professional qualifications. The NCHA had recently received copies of cancelled checks payable to Lainie Whitmire for training fees and a copy of an Oklahoma lawsuit signed under oath by her in which she was suing to recover training fees. In November of 2004, the Non-Pro Committee found that she was not eligible for amateur or non-pro status and she had asked for further review of those actions. The Non-Pro Committee did not have this new information when it made its rulings in November. In the meantime, she was competing in the amateur and non-pro classes at the Futurity while she was awaiting further hearings. All those involved for the NCHA thought the issues created by the new information needed to be immediately addressed to determine whether or not she was qualified to compete in these classes under our rules. The meeting took place and Plaintiff's attorney, Clark Brewster, was there for most of the meeting. We used the room where the meeting was held to conduct various meetings during the Futurity, including meetings with sponsors and prospective sponsors. The decision was made after that meeting to allow her to continue to show pending her appeal. We didn't think there was anything wrong with this meeting and never heard she had a problem with it for nearly two years until she filed this lawsuit.

The NCHA Executive Committee settled all issues concerning Plaintiff's non-pro status by agreement in January of 2005. At the direction of the Executive Committee, Eldridge Goins wrote a letter containing the agreement which included a 6-month membership suspension, revocation of her amateur status, revocation of her non-pro status and a provision that if the rules ever changed allowing her to then qualify as an amateur or non-pro, she would be allowed to apply for non-pro or amateur status at that time. Up until this lawsuit was filed, we never heard anything about any agreement for her to come back as a non-pro in 6 months after her suspension ended. For a year after her membership suspension ended, she made multiple applications for non-pro status under the new "five-year, $10,000.00 exception rule", but she didn't meet the requirements. She wrote several letters to the NCHA during this time but never mentioned any supposed agreement to come back in as a non-pro. At her request, the NCHA had her non-pro application reviewed by the entire Non-Pro Committee and Executive Committee even though this is not required under our rules. Not once during any of these proceedings did she mention any agreement.

Our lawyers asked the Judge to let into evidence papers submitted by her lawyer (Jim Walker)to the Executive Committee in 2006 that acknowledged that the January 19, 2005 letter from the NCHA contained all the terms of the parties' agreement. Our lawyers also asked the judge to let Lindy Burch testify at trial. The Judge didn't allow that testimony because Plaintiff objected to it. We feel like both of these things would have helped our case.

The trial ended on January 24, 2011. The jury rendered a verdict that Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned but granted no damages to her for that claim. The jury also found that Plaintiff had an oral agreement (other than the written terms of the letter written back in January of 2005)to be reinstated as a non-pro after 6 months and awarded her $70,000.00 in damages. None of these claims allow Plaintiff to come back into the NCHA as a member, they just involve dollar damages. We are not sure why they came to this conclusion, but they did so and we just have to deal with it. No judgment has been entered by the trial court yet.

The next step is for the Judge to enter a judgment. He will have a chance to review the jury's verdict and decide what judgment to enter that is supported by the evidence. Our lawyers will be arguing that we should get judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims including the secret agreement claim on which he previously granted summary judgment . Her lawyers will also be arguing that she should get a judgment that matches the jury's verdict and also get some attorneys' fees. Our lawyers will also be arguing that we should get attorneys' fees on the claims we won. Nothing will be final until the Judge signs a judgment. Once he does that, we will have 30 days to consider his judgment and decide if we want to appeal.

Out of all the 11 claims made by Ray and Lainie Whitmire in this case, the NCHA won on all but the secret agreement claim and she received no damages for false imprisonment. We feel like we followed our rules and did the right thing. It is important that we consistently enforce and apply all our rules to insure fairness to all members who compete in our shows. We will wait to see what the Judge's final judgment says.