Phyllis Schlafly, now deceased, founded the Illinois-based conservative political action group, the Eagle Forum.
MOUNT VERNON, ILLINOIS - A state appeals panel has upheld a $28,500 sanction awarded in the ongoing legal dispute between family members of the late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly over control of her political organization, Eagle Forum.
The underlying litigation dates to an April 2016 Madison County Circuit Court lawsuit, several months before Schlafly died at age 92. Six plaintiffs, including Anne Schlafly Cori, sometimes referred to as the Forum’s majority directors, were displeased with the presidency of Edward Martin, who assumed the position in early 2015. In April 2016 the six voted – against the objections of Phyllis Schlafly and John Schlafly — to terminate Martin as well as Runnymede Law Group, to revoke all financial signatories and to conduct an assets audit.
They filed their suit later that month, alleging Martin and John Schlafly refused to acknowledge and comply with the votes from the April 11 meeting. After several ensuing proceedings, the plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint in November 2019. That complaint included the count relevant on appeal: Cori’s contentions about an April 8, 2016, board telephone conference at which she and the other plaintiffs were ostensibly removed from the board over her protests that the meeting was invalid because it was hastily called in contravention of Eagle Forum bylaws.
When Cori moved for summary judgment on that count in January 2020, the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund responded by asserting the teleconference was an informal conversation and said she wasn’t formally removed from the board until its annual meeting in September 2016. The EFELDF included in its response an affidavit from John Schlafly.
In February 2020, after being granted summary judgment, Cori moved to hold EFELDF and John Schlafly in statutory contempt, alleging his affidavit included false and misleading statements and was filed in bad faith for the purposes of delaying legal action. She asked a court to award her the legal expenses associated with responding to the filing and pursuing contempt.
The circuit court judge issued a contempt order in September 2020, concluding the affidavit was “at odds” with transcript of the recorded conference call. It took until April 2024 for a different judge to order the payment, a ruling John Schlafly challenged before the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court.
Justice Judy Lynn Cates wrote the panel’s opinion, filed Dec. 2; Justices Mark Boie and Amy Sholar concurred. The order was issued under Supreme Court Rule 23, which restricts its use as precedent.
Cates noted Martin’s April 7, 2016, email to directors with the subject “Emergency Board Meeting 10 a.m. CST Friday,” as well as Phyllis Schlafly’s remarks on the transcript regarding the Forum’s “first ever telephone board meeting” and the taking of roll, noting of Cori’s objections and several substantive votes on motions members presented during the session.
“The court recognized that John (Schlafly) was well-educated and a licensed attorney who was accustomed to litigation and presumably aware of the purpose of countervailing affidavits in summary judgment practice,” Cates wrote. “The court found that the affidavit offered by John did not amount to mere ‘bad judgment or negligence,’ but instead implied ‘conscious’ wrongdoing for a ‘dishonest’ purpose, and that the only purpose served by so dramatically misrepresenting the nature of the meeting was to obstruct the motion for summary judgment.”
Schlafly also argued Cori was wrong to allege his affidavit caused her to incur legal fees, and further that he shouldn’t be found in contempt because he didn’t directly file the affidavit.
Cates said the attempt to distance himself from the filing lacked merit. She praised Madison County Circuit Court Judge David Dugan, who handled the case until becoming a federal Judge in September 2020, and his successor, Judge Sarah Smith, for closely reviewing the record and the fee petition and found no evidence of an abuse of discretion.