1 

2021 IL App (5th) 200342-U 

NO. 5-20-0342 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________________ 

ANNE SCHLAFLY CORI and EAGLE ) Appeal from the

FORUM, ) Circuit Court of

 ) Madison County.

Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 16-MR-111 

 ) 

JOHN F. SCHLAFLY, ) Honorable 

 ) David W. Dugan, 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court.

 Presiding Justice Boie and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment.

 

 ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant John Schlafly

in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with provisions of an 

amended temporary restraining order that directed him to deliver (a) specific 

contacts lists, and (b) Eagle Forum corporate records. The trial court’s order 

 finding John Schlafly in statutory contempt for filing an affidavit in bad faith

 was not immediately appealable under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5) where 

the contempt order did not impose a penalty. The appellate court lacked

jurisdiction under Supreme Court Rule 304 to consider Eagle Forum’s crossappeal in the absence of a Rule 304(a) finding.

¶ 2 Defendant John F. Schlafly appeals from orders of the trial court finding him in 

indirect civil contempt for failure to comply with provisions in a temporary restraining order 

and in statutory contempt for filing an affidavit in bad faith and for purposes of delay. For 

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and is 

not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).

NOTICE

Decision filed 11/17/21. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.
2 

the reasons that follow, the appeal from the order finding John Schlafly in statutory civil 

contempt is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016), and the order finding John Schlafly in indirect civil contempt 

is affirmed in part and vacated in part. Eagle Forum’s cross-appeal is dismissed for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 This case arose out of a dispute over the ownership and control of the assets of Eagle 

Forum. Eagle Forum is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization under § 501(c)(4) of the 

Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) (2016)). It was founded by Phyllis Schlafly 

to advance conservative causes. The first four years of this litigation have been contentious, 

and the record on appeal is lengthy, containing over 25,000 pages. This appeal is limited 

to the propriety of the trial court’s rulings on motions for indirect civil contempt against 

defendant John F. Schlafly. A discussion of the facts and procedural history are centered 

on those rulings. 

¶ 5 When this litigation commenced in 2016, the plaintiffs, Anne Schlafly Cori (Cori), 

Eunie Smith, Cathie Adams, Carolyn McLarty, Rosina Kovar, and Shirley Curry, were 

serving as Directors of Eagle Forum.

1 Defendant John F. Schlafly (John) was the Treasurer 

and a Director of Eagle Forum. Defendant Edward R. Martin Jr. (Martin)2

 was the 

President of Eagle Forum. Martin was also the President of the Eagle Forum Education and 

1

These plaintiffs, collectively, are also referred to as the “Majority Directors.”

2

For clarity, we refer to Anne Schlafly Cori as “Cori,” John F. Schlafly as “John,” and Edward 

Martin Jr. as “Martin” throughout this disposition.
3 

Legal Defense Fund (EFELDF).3 Phyllis Schlafly, a nonparty, served as a Director, 

Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Forum until her death on September 5, 

2016. 

¶ 6 A. The Rift in Eagle Forum’s Leadership

¶ 7 According to the allegations in the original complaint, Martin was elected as 

President of Eagle Forum on January 31, 2015. During Martin’s tenure as President, 

discord developed among Eagle Forum’s national organization, its state affiliates, and its 

membership base, and a rift arose within the leadership of Eagle Forum. On March 29, 

2016, Cathie Adams, Shirley Curry, and Eunie Smith mailed a notice to all of the directors 

of Eagle Forum, advising them that a meeting would be held by teleconference on April 

11, 2016. 

¶ 8 On April 9, 2016, Martin emailed more than 41,000 individuals, using a “contacts 

list” that Eagle Forum often used for its mass mailings. In the email, Martin claimed that 

six directors of Eagle Forum were going to hold a “rogue meeting.” He implored the email 

recipients to urge those directors not to “hijack” Eagle Forum for their own purposes. That 

same day, the plaintiffs received a letter, ostensibly from Phyllis Schlafly, asking them to 

resign their positions immediately. On April 10, 2016, the plaintiffs received a letter from 

the Runnymede Law Group. Runnymede stated that it had been retained as legal counsel 

3

Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt entity under 

§ 501(c)(3) of the United States Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) (2016)). This organization was referred to as 

“EFELDF” in the trial court and that designation will be retained in this disposition for consistency.
4 

for Eagle Forum, and it directed the plaintiffs to stop acting in violation of their fiduciary 

duties to Eagle Forum.

¶ 9 On April 11, 2016, the Eagle Forum Board of Directors met via teleconference. The 

plaintiffs were on the call. Phyllis Schlafly and John were also present, but the other three 

directors, Andy Schlafly, Kathleen Sullivan, and LaNeil Wright Spivy, were absent. Martin 

was also on the call. According to the Eagle Forum Bylaws, the presence of 6 of the 11 

directors constituted a quorum. When the Board moved into executive session, Martin was 

not allowed to participate because he was not a director. During the executive session, a 

majority of the Board members approved a motion to immediately terminate Martin as 

President of Eagle Forum. The majority members also approved motions to terminate the 

Runnymede Law Group as legal counsel for Eagle Forum, revoke all signatories on Eagle 

Forum financial accounts, and conduct an audit of Eagle Forum assets. All motions passed 

by a margin of 6-2, with the plaintiffs voting in favor of each motion, and John and Phyllis 

Schlafly objecting to and opposing each motion. Immediately after the Board meeting, 

Runnymede Law Group was notified that it no longer represented Eagle Forum, and Martin 

and the Eagle Forum staff were notified that Martin had been terminated from his role as 

President of Eagle Forum. 

¶ 10 On April 22, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a verified complaint against defendants John, 

Martin, and Eagle Forum.

4

 The plaintiffs alleged that John and Martin refused to 

4

Eagle Forum was sued as a nominal defendant. Eagle Forum was later realigned as a party plaintiff 

and was given leave to file its own complaint in this action. Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense 

Fund, Eagle Trust Fund, Phyllis Schlafly’s American Eagles, the Estate of Phyllis Schlafly, Andrew 

Schlafly, Bruce Schlafly, and Kathleen Sullivan were added as party defendants.
5 

acknowledge Martin’s termination as President of Eagle Forum, and that John and Martin 

prevented the plaintiffs from gaining access to Eagle Forum documents, financial accounts,

contact lists, websites, and related passwords. The plaintiffs further alleged that Martin 

used Eagle Forum social media accounts to disseminate disinformation about the April 11, 

2016, meeting of the Eagle Forum Board of Directors. The plaintiffs claimed that 

defendants’ actions harmed the name and reputation of Eagle Forum.

¶ 11 The complaint contained counts alleging that John and Martin breached their 

fiduciary duties to Eagle Forum, its members, donors, and officers (counts I and II), and 

colluded to prevent the Majority Directors from fulfilling their fiduciary duties to Eagle 

Forum (count III). The complaint also contained a count for accounting of Eagle Forum’s

property (count IV) and a count for a judgment declaring that the April 11, 2016, meeting 

of the Eagle Forum Board of Directors was properly noticed and that all motions approved

during the meeting were valid and lawful (count V). Finally, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin 

John and Martin from interfering with the plaintiffs’ efforts to perform their obligations to 

Eagle Forum (count VI). 

¶ 12 John and Martin filed an answer and denied the main allegations of the plaintiffs’ 

complaint. They also filed affirmative defenses, asserting that the April 11, 2016, meeting 

of the Eagle Forum Board violated the organization’s bylaws and that any actions taken by 

the Majority Directors were ultra vires and a breach of their fiduciary duties. Martin and 

John also filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

¶ 13 B. The Amended TRO and Contempt Proceedings
6 

¶ 14 On April 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

against John and Martin. Following a hearing on April 29, 2016, the trial court issued a 

temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO was issued to restrain John and Martin from 

blocking the plaintiffs’ access to “the Illinois Headquarters and any and all property of 

Eagle Forum 501(c)(4) located thereon or elsewhere.” The court also revoked all prior 

signatories on Eagle Forum accounts. The court placed signatory authority for those 

accounts with Cori, Smith, and Phyllis Schlafly, and required all three to sign any 

instrument of deposit or withdrawal. 

¶ 15 On September 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to amend the TRO. 

The plaintiffs claimed that changes had been made to content on Eagle Forum’s website 

and that the registered owner of Eagle Forum’s domain name had been changed without 

their authorization. While awaiting a hearing date, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental 

pleading alleging that John and Martin continued to deny the plaintiffs access to Eagle 

Forum property, and thereby threatened the status quo.

¶ 16 Following a hearing on October 20, 2016, the trial court issued an amended 

temporary restraining order (Amended TRO). The court found that John and Martin 

continued to deny the plaintiffs access to the property and assets of Eagle Forum, including 

membership lists, mailing lists, and databases or other lists used by Eagle Forum for mass 

mailings, emails, and robocalls. The court also found that John and Martin made changes 

to the content on the Eagle Forum website and changed the registered owner of Eagle 

Forum’s domain name to Eagle Trust Fund, and then to Roger Schlafly, without the 

knowledge or authorization of the Eagle Forum Board. The court further found that John 
7 

and Martin had demonstrated an unwillingness or incapacity to serve the best interests of 

Eagle Forum. The court concluded that allowing John and Martin “to continue to use, 

access, control, transfer and or modify Eagle Forum property and resources” was 

detrimental to the status quo and contrary to the court’s desire to protect and preserve the 

assets of Eagle Forum pending a resolution of the case on the merits.

¶ 17 In the Amended TRO, the court directed that the plaintiffs, as Majority Directors of 

Eagle Forum, “shall immediately assume temporary sole control and possession over all 

Eagle Forum property,” including but not limited to: 

• (1) the eagleforum.org domain name and website; 

• (2) all email addresses using the domain name “@eagleforum.org”; 

• (3) all Eagle PayPal and social media accounts; 

• (4) all usernames, passwords, passcodes, identification numbers, software and/or 

information used to obtain access to and/or control of any Eagle Forum property, 

accounts, and software; 

• (5) the contact list of 14,000 active members of Eagle Forum, the contact list of 

41,000 emails used by Eagle Forum for purposes of mass emails, in a useable 

electronic format, and any other lists used by Eagle Forum in its day-to-day 

operations prior to April 11, 2016; 

• (6) all Eagle Forum electronic and hard copy files, books, records, or other 

documents, including records of the names and contact information for all Eagle 

Forum donors and members, including the history and amounts of donation; 
8 

• (7) all life insurance policies and related documentation;

• (8) all stock, investment, savings, checking, credit, and lending accounts; and 

• (9) all credit cards, check books, and blank checks associated with the accounts.

In the Amended TRO, the court referred to the enumerated items collectively as “Eagle 

Forum Property.”

¶ 18 The court further ordered that Eagle Forum should continue to transact business 

with Eagle Trust Fund (ETF) and EFELDF, as it had in the past, provided that such 

transactions did not violate Illinois and federal law, Eagle Forum Bylaws, or orders of the 

court. The court directed that within 48 hours of its order, the defendants and all those 

acting in concert with them “shall complete the transfer of all Eagle Forum Property” to 

the plaintiffs and “cooperate in good faith” with the plaintiffs’ efforts to assume immediate 

control and possession of all Eagle Forum Property. The court enjoined the defendants, and 

those acting in concert with them, from “using, accessing, controlling, transferring, 

copying, destroying or modifying any Eagle Forum Property” without the prior written 

authorization of the plaintiffs. 

¶ 19 The court also suspended Martin from his position as President of Eagle Forum and 

John from his position as Treasurer of Eagle Forum. Phyllis Schlafly was removed as a 

signatory on all Eagle Forum accounts. John and Martin were ordered to reverse any 

changes made to the Eagle Forum website and to restore Eagle Forum as the registered 

owner of the Eagle Forum domain name. The court authorized the plaintiffs to terminate 

Eagle Forum’s legal counsel and retain independent legal counsel for Eagle Forum. The 

court named Eunie Smith as acting President of Eagle Forum and Cori as acting Chairman 
9 

of Eagle Forum, and gave them exclusive authority to communicate with any third party 

about the Eagle Forum® mark and Eagle Forum® registration. The Amended TRO was 

signed and filed on October 20, 2016. 

¶ 20 On October 24, 2016, with the ink barely dry on the Amended TRO, the plaintiffs 

filed a motion seeking an order to show cause why John and Martin should not be held in 

contempt. The plaintiffs alleged that John and Martin had failed to transfer any Eagle 

Forum property to them within 48 hours after the Amended TRO was issued. The plaintiffs 

asked the court to find John and Martin in contempt and to order appropriate sanctions

against them. 

¶ 21 On December 15, 2016, Eagle Forum filed a motion for civil contempt against John 

and Martin, alleging a failure to comply with the Amended TRO. Specifically, Eagle 

Forum alleged that John and Martin failed to transfer a single piece of Eagle Forum 

property to the plaintiffs; failed to turn over access, materials, and information regarding 

the Washington, D.C., office; and failed to turn over financial information necessary to 

Eagle Forum’s compliance with Federal Election Commission filings. Eagle Forum also 

alleged that John and Martin sent mass correspondence to Eagle Forum members without 

Eagle Forum’s authorization. Eagle Forum asked the court to impose sanctions on John 

and Martin under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002), including striking 

their pleadings and awarding attorney fees to Eagle Forum. On January 26, 2017, Eagle 

Forum filed a supplemental motion for contempt against Martin and John and alleged

additional violations of the Amended TRO. 
10 

¶ 22 On February 9, 2017, the court entered an order, as agreed to by the parties, directing 

that the electronic version of Eagle Forum’s QuickBooks accounts, board minutes, 

corporate records, and tax records for all years available be delivered to plaintiffs that day

(February 9, 2017). The court further ordered that all Eagle Forum checks and checkbooks, 

all financial and bank statements, all board minutes and corporate records, and all mail 

addressed to Eagle Forum be delivered to the plaintiffs on or before February 10, 2017. 

Computer equipment and credit cards records were to be delivered to the plaintiffs within 

14 days of the order.

¶ 23 On April 18, 2017, Eagle Forum filed second and third supplemental motions for 

civil contempt against John. Eagle Forum asserted that John failed to return Eagle Forum 

property in violation of the Amended TRO and the order of February 9, 2017, and that John

continued to represent that he was associated with Eagle Forum. Eagle Forum also filed a 

second supplemental motion for civil contempt against Martin, and asserted that in media, 

letters, and emails, Martin continued to represent that he was associated with Eagle Forum. 

¶ 24 All pending motions for contempt were called for hearing on June 19, 2018, and 

June 20, 2018. Following two days of testimony, the parties agreed to an order regarding 

some of the disputed property, and the contempt proceedings were continued. The agreed 

order was approved by the trial court and issued on August 22, 2018. Under the order, 

Eagle Forum would obtain possession of and/or access to various items of property which 

had been the subject of the contempt proceedings. The parties expressly agreed that nothing 

contained within the order “was intended or should be construed as ruling on the pending 

contempt motions or requests for sanctions,” and no party was “giving up, waiving, or
11 

relinquishing any rights they may have” under any pending motions, including the 

contempt motions.

¶ 25 C. Cori’s Motion for Statutory Contempt 

¶ 26 On January 10, 2020, Cori filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to count 

XX of the fifth amended complaint brought against John, Bruce Schlafly, and EFELDF. 

Cori sought a judgment declaring that the April 8, 2016, meeting of the EFELDF Board of 

Directors was held in violation of the notice requirements of the EFELDF’s Bylaws, and 

that any actions taken during the meeting were invalid.

5 In support of the motion, Cori 

attached a copy of the EFELDF Bylaws and an email, dated April 7, 2016, indicating that

a special meeting of the EFELDF’s Directors would be held on April 8, 2016.

¶ 27 On January 23, 2020, EFELDF filed a response in opposition to Cori’s motion for 

partial summary judgment, and John and Bruce Schlafly joined in that response. EFELDF 

asserted that Cori had been removed during the annual meeting of the Board of Directors 

on September 18, 2016. EFELDF stated that it had never taken the position that Cori had 

been removed from the Board during an informal telephone conversation on April 8, 2016. 

EFELDF attached a supporting affidavit from John. In the affidavit, John averred: 

5

According to count XX of the fifth amended complaint, Martin sent an email on April 7, 2016, 

scheduling a meeting of the EFELDF Board of Directors for the following morning. On April 8, 2016, the 

EFELDF Board of Directors convened a meeting via teleconference. Cori, then an EFELDF Director, was 

on the call and objected because the meeting was convened without seven days’ notice as required by the 

EFELDF Bylaws. Cori’s objection was noted, but the Board proceeded to conduct business, including 

voting for Cori’s replacement on the Board of Directors. 
12 

 “3. On April 8, 2016, certain members of the Board of EFELDF, myself 

included, engaged in informal conversation amongst themselves.

 4. EFELDF understood that the April 8, 2016, informal conversation did not 

constitute a meeting of the Board of the Directors of EFELDF, and thus EFELDF 

has taken no subsequent actions following and relying upon the April 8, 2016, 

conversation.” 

¶ 28 On January 27, 2020, Cori filed a reply with supporting documents. Cori attached 

an audio recording and typed transcript of the Board meeting on April 8, 2016. 

¶ 29 On February 10, 2020, the trial court granted Cori’s motion for partial summary 

judgment. In its order, the court declared that the EFELDF meeting on April 8, 2016, was 

“deemed” to have been conducted in violation of EFELDF’s then-existing bylaws, that the 

actions taken during the April 8, 2016, meeting were deemed invalid actions, and that Cori 

remained a director of EFELDF “at least until September 18, 2016.” 

¶ 30 On February 20, 2020, Cori filed a motion asking the court to find John and 

EFELDF in statutory contempt pursuant to section 2-1005(f) of the Code of Civil 

Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(f) (West 2018)), for filing an affidavit in bad faith

and for purposes of delay. Cori alleged that John’s affidavit, filed in support of EFELDF’s

opposition to her motion for partial summary judgment, contained false and misleading

statements regarding the nature of the EFELDF meeting on April 8, 2016. She sought an 

award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the terms of the statute.

¶ 31 D. The Contempt Order

¶ 32 From August 3, 2020, through August 10, 2020, the trial court conducted additional 

evidentiary hearings on the show cause and contempt motions filed by the plaintiffs, Eagle 

Forum, and Cori. After considering six days of sworn testimony, more than 600 pages of 
13 

deposition testimony, and more than 2000 pages of exhibits, the court issued a 28-page 

order (Contempt Order) containing the trial court’s rulings and reasoning.

¶ 33 The trial court initially addressed the show cause motion filed by the plaintiffs on 

October 24, 2017. The court found that John and Martin failed to turn over Eagle Forum 

property to the plaintiffs within 48 hours after the entry of the Amended TRO, but 

concluded that their inaction was excusable. The court pointed to testimony indicating that 

John and Martin believed that the attorneys who represented them in their capacities as 

officials of Eagle Forum intended to seek a stay of the Amended TRO. Subsequently, those 

attorneys, who also represented Eagle Forum, did not seek a stay or an appeal of the 

Amended TRO. The court concluded that John and Martin offered a reasonable excuse for 

their initial noncompliance and denied the plaintiffs’ show cause motion. 

¶ 34 The trial court next addressed Eagle Forum’s pending contempt motions against 

John and Martin.6 After reviewing the evidence, the court found John in indirect civil 

contempt because of his willful and inexcusable failure (a) to produce to Eagle Forum the 

list of 14,000 Eagle Forum members and the contact list of 41,000 emails used by Eagle 

Forum for mass emails; (b) to timely produce Eagle Forum’s tax returns, financial 

statements, checks, and bank records; and (c) to turn over the keys and a garage door opener 

to the office in Washington, D.C. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence 

6

These included the motion for contempt against John and Martin filed December 15, 2016; the 

supplemental motion against John and Martin filed January 26, 2017; the second supplemental motion 

against Martin filed April 18, 2017; the second supplemental motion against John filed April 18, 2017; and 

the third supplemental motion against John filed April 18, 2017.
14 

to find that John violated the Amended TRO pertaining to Eagle Forum’s domain name, 

website, and associated email addresses.

¶ 35 After finding John in indirect civil contempt, the court ordered that “John Schlafly, 

consistent with the Court’s Order of October 20, 2016, shall within twenty-one (21) days 

of the date of this order:

1. Provide and cause to be delivered to Anne Cori as a member of the Board of 

Directors of Eagle Forum, an electronic (in a common format such as .pdf) 

or hard copy of any and all of the approximately 14,000 Eagle Forum 

members’ contact, leader, and donor lists referred to in this Court’s Order of 

October 20, 2016. This paragraph should not be construed or interpreted to 

mean that this Order determines that Eagle Forum, Eagle Trust Fund or 

EFELDF has an interest in any such list or information contained therein that 

is superior to that of any other person or entity. 

2. Provide and cause to be delivered to Anne Cori as a member of the Board of 

Directors of Eagle Forum any all corporate records for Eagle Forum 

including any and all financial accounting records, tax returns and associated 

and supporting documents, bank account statements, checks (including 

uncancelled instruments), financial statements, by-laws, and other corporate 

documents in his actual or constructive possession regardless of whether 

such item of property is held or is claimed by to be held by him personally, 

as a trustee of Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust or as a member of Eagle 

Trust Fund.

3. Provide and cause to be delivered to Anne Cori as a member of the Board of 

directors of Eagle Forum any and all passwords, usernames, passcodes, 

identification numbers and necessary access information in any format 

relative to or otherwise necessary to access or control Eagleforum.org, its 

website, or email accounts associated with or pointed to by Eagleforum.org. 

4. Provide and cause to be delivered to Anne Cori as a member of the Board of 

directors of Eagle Forum any and all passwords, usernames, passcodes, 

identification numbers and necessary access information relative to 

Eagleforum.org’s domain registration and renewal with any hosting service 

provider including, but not limited to, GoDaddy, Host Monster, and Network 

Solutions. 
15 

5. Provide and cause to be delivered to Anne Cori as a member of the Board of 

Directors of Eagle Forum any and all letters, emails, correspondence, 

certificates, and any and all other documents relative to the Eagle Forum® 

mark.” 

¶ 36 The court also directed John to file an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the 

order. The Contempt Order included the following penalty provision in the event John 

failed to comply: 

 “It is further ordered that for each day that John Schlafly shall fail to timely 

comply with as [sic] aspect of this order, John Schlafly shall be personally assessed 

a sanction of $250.00 per day. In the event that John Schlafly shall fail to comply 

with this order for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, he may 

be thereafter confined in the Madison County Jail and remain in the custody of the 

Madison County Sheriff until he complies with this Order.”

¶ 37 The trial court then considered the contempt allegations against Martin. The court 

found Martin in contempt of the Amended TRO because of his use of the list of the 14,000 

active Eagle Forum members and the contact list of 41,000 emails used by Eagle Forum 

for mass emails. The court did not find Martin in contempt for his refusal to turn over 

domain names, domain hosts, and associated email lists. The court also determined that the

evidence was not sufficient to show that Martin held himself out as a representative of 

Eagle Forum, as alleged. 

¶ 38 The court indicated that it would order John and Martin to pay the reasonable 

attorney fees and expenses that Eagle Forum incurred in preparing and presenting those 

motions in which contempt was established. Eagle Forum was directed to file its claim for 

fees and expenses, along with supporting documentation, within 21 days of the order.

¶ 39 The trial court next considered Cori’s motion to find John and EFELDF in statutory 

civil contempt for filing a false affidavit. The court examined the transcript of the April 8, 
16 

2016, meeting and concluded that the descriptions in John’s affidavit, depicting the 

meeting as an “informal conversation,” were “at odds” with the transcript. The court noted 

that Phyllis Schlafly had thanked the EFELDF Directors for “coming to our first time ever 

telephone board meeting,” that roll call was taken, and that motions were made and voted 

upon, including a motion to replace Cori as Treasurer of EFELDF. The court further noted 

that the activities of the EFELDF Directors on April 8, 2016, were nothing like those 

typically witnessed during “informal conversations.” The court found that John’s 

characterization of the April 8, 2016, meeting, as set forth in his affidavit, was not “simply 

bad judgment or negligence,” but rather “the conscious doing of a wrong because of a 

dishonest purpose.” The court concluded John’s affidavit “was made for the purpose of 

delay and was, in fact, made in bad faith.” The court adjudged John in civil contempt as 

authorized by section 2-1005(f) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(f) (West 2018)) and

indicated that it would order John to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, 

that Cori incurred in filing and prosecuting her motion. 

¶ 40 All other contempt allegations not specifically discussed in the Contempt Order 

were denied. Cori filed her motion for attorney fees and expenses on October 2, 2020. 

Eagle Forum filed its petition for attorney fees and expenses on October 13, 2020.

¶ 41 On October 15, 2020, John filed an affidavit averring that he “fully and completely 

complied” with the Contempt Order by causing to be delivered all of the items that were 

in his actual or constructive possession as of the date he signed the affidavit. Specifically, 

John stated that he caused to be delivered the lists described in paragraph 1, the records 

and documents described in paragraph 2, and the documents and communications 
17 

described in paragraph 5. John further stated that he did not “actually or constructively 

possess, nor have access to,” any of the items described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the 

Contempt Order. 

¶ 42 On October 19, 2020, John filed his notice of appeal from the Contempt Order 

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). On October 29, 

2020, Eagle Forum and Cori filed separate motions to dismiss John’s appeal for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction under Rule 304(b)(5). Eagle Forum also filed a notice of cross-appeal 

in the event its motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.

¶ 43 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 44 On appeal, John claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in 

indirect civil contempt for noncompliance with the Amended TRO. John also claims the 

court erred in finding him in statutory contempt under section 2-1005(f) of the Code (735 

ILCS 5/2-1005(f) (West 2018)), because the affidavit he filed in opposition to Cori’s 

motion for partial summary judgment was not submitted in bad faith or for purposes of 

delay. 

¶ 45 A. Appellate Jurisdiction

¶ 46 In this case, the Contempt Order did not fully dispose of the proceedings and the 

case remains pending in the trial court. John filed this appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Cori and Eagle Forum filed separate motions to 

dismiss the appeal. Each argues that appellate jurisdiction is lacking under Rule 304(a)(5) 

because the trial court did not impose a penalty after finding John in contempt. 
18 

¶ 47 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304 governs appeals from final judgments that do not 

dispose of the entire case. Ill. S. Ct. R. 304 (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). Under Rule 304(a), “an 

appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all parties or 

claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason 

for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).

Rule 304(b) contains exceptions to the special finding requirement in paragraph (a) of the 

rule. Under Rule 304(b)(5), “[a]n order finding a person or entity in contempt of court 

which imposes a monetary or other penalty” is appealable without a Rule 304(a) finding.

Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). An order that finds an individual in contempt 

without imposing a penalty is not final and not reviewable. In re Estate of Hayden, 361 Ill. 

App. 3d 1021, 1026 (2005); Vowell v. Pedersen, 315 Ill. App. 3d 665, 666 (2000). 

¶ 48 The trial court found John in civil contempt under section 2-1005(f) of the Code 

(735 ILCS 5/2-1005(f) (West 2018))7 for filing an affidavit in bad faith and for purposes 

of delay. The court determined that Cori was entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees 

and expenses associated “with countering the false affidavit” and prosecuting her motions 

for contempt, but the court did not impose a specific penalty, and the court did not make a 

Rule 304(a) finding. Cori filed a fee petition, and that petition was pending when John filed 

his notice of appeal. Because the amount of the fees was to be assessed in the future and 

7

Section 2-1005 provides that when “it appears to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any 

affidavit presented pursuant to this Section is presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay, the 

court shall without delay order the party employing it to pay the other party the amount of reasonable 

expenses which the filing of the affidavit caused him or her to incur, including reasonable attorney’s fees, 

and any offending party may be adjudged guilty of contempt.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(f) (West 2018).
19 

because the contempt order imposed no specific fine or penalty, we do not have jurisdiction 

under Rule 304(b)(5) to consider John’s appeal from the statutory civil contempt order. 

Pedigo v. Youngblood, 2015 IL App (4th) 140222, ¶ 17. Therefore, John’s appeal from the 

trial court’s finding of statutory contempt is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

¶ 49 Next, we consider whether we have jurisdiction under Rule 304(b)(5) to consider 

the trial court’s findings of indirect civil contempt against John. According to the record, 

the trial court found John in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with provisions 

in the Amended TRO. The court then ordered John to deliver several items of property to 

Eagle Forum within 21 days of the order. The court further ordered that “for each day that 

John Schlafly shall fail to timely comply” with any aspect of this order, he shall be assessed 

a sanction of $250 per day. If John failed to comply with the order for a period of 30 days 

from the date of the order, he could have been “confined” in the Madison County jail until 

he complied. Thus, the trial court imposed a continuing and indefinite penalty of $250 per 

day, and possible incarceration, but delayed enforcement for 21 days to allow John to purge 

the contempt.8

 Accordingly, we have jurisdiction under Rule 304(b)(5) to consider that

portion of the contempt order. 

¶ 50 In respective motions to dismiss, Cori and Eagle Forum sought sanctions under 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 375 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994), arguing that this appeal was not 

justified under existing law. The imposition of sanctions under Rule 375 is a matter within 

the discretion of the reviewing court. Henby v. White, 2016 IL App (5th) 140407, ¶ 28. 

8

Based on an affidavit executed on October 15, 2020, John complied with the contempt order, but 

he did so after the 21-day deadline had passed. 
20 

After reviewing the record and the arguments on appeal, we do not find that sanctions are 

warranted. Therefore, the requests by Cori and Eagle Forum for Rule 375 sanctions are 

denied. 

¶ 51 B. Indirect Civil Contempt and the Amended TRO

¶ 52 On appeal, John claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding him in 

indirect civil contempt for noncompliance with the Amended TRO. John argues that the 

Contempt Order should be vacated because it primarily served to punish him for past 

noncompliance, rather than to coerce future compliance. John contends that the trial court 

failed to consider whether there was a current need for enforcement of the Amended TRO, 

and whether it was possible for him to purge the contempt. John claims that much of the 

property identified in the Amended TRO was turned over before the Contempt Order was 

issued. He claims that he was unable to turn over other property because it was not under 

his control.

¶ 53 Civil contempt orders are designed to compel a contemnor to perform a specific act 

or acts. In re Marriage of Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d 26, 46 (1990). Civil contempt sanctions 

are prospective in nature and invoked to coerce compliance with the court’s order. Betts, 

200 Ill. App. 3d at 43. In civil contempt proceedings, the contemnor must be capable of 

taking the action sought to be coerced, and no further contempt sanctions are imposed upon 

the contemnor’s compliance with the pertinent order. Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 43. A 

sanction must be vacated when it becomes evident that the sanction is no longer fulfilling 

its coercive function. Hayden, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 1029. The contemnor bears the burden to 
21 

show that the sanction has lost its coercive effect and will not cause him to comply with 

the order. Hayden, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 1029-30. 

¶ 54 In a civil contempt proceeding, the burden of proving contempt is on the party 

bringing the motion, and the contempt must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Harper v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 282 Ill. App. 3d 19, 28 (1996). Noncompliance with 

an order is prima facie evidence of civil contempt. In re Estate of Baldassarre, 2018 IL 

App (2d) 170996, ¶ 36. Once noncompliance is established, the burden shifts to the 

contemnor to establish that he did not have the means or ability to comply with the order.

Baldassarre, 2018 IL App (2d) 170996, ¶ 36; County of Cook v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 

59 Ill. 2d 131, 137 (1974). The defense of inability is unavailable, where a contemnor has 

voluntarily created the inability to comply. Fry Roofing, 59 Ill. 2d at 137. It is the trial 

court’s function to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the witnesses, and make 

findings of fact. Harper, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 28-29. Whether a party’s conduct is 

contemptuous is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will 

not reverse the trial court’s adjudication of contempt absent an abuse of discretion. People 

v. Cole, 2017 IL 120997, ¶¶ 19-20. 

¶ 55 The trial court found John in indirect civil contempt because of his willful and 

inexcusable failure (a) to produce the list of 14,000 Eagle Forum members and the contact 

list of 41,000 emails used Eagle Forum for mass emails; (b) to timely produce Eagle 

Forum’s tax returns, financial statements, checks, and bank records; and (c) to turn over 

the keys and a garage door opener to the Washington, D.C., office. In its order, the court 

provided the factual basis and reasons for each finding of contempt.
22 

¶ 56 The trial court initially considered whether John complied with the order to turn 

over the contact list of 14,000 Eagle Forum members and at least some of the contact lists 

of 41,000 emails used by Eagle Forum for purposes of sending mass emails. During the 

contempt proceedings, John admitted that he did not turn over the contact lists at issue. 

John explained that there were no actual “lists,” but instead, a much larger database that 

contained information regarding members, donors, and leaders. He testified that the Phyllis 

Schlafly Revocable Trust (PSRT) had asserted ownership in the database, and that ETF 

was the custodian of the database. John claimed that he was unable to comply with the 

Amended TRO because he was neither the owner nor the custodian of the database and had 

no control over it. John also claimed that extracting Eagle Forum information from the 

larger database would be a difficult task.

¶ 57 The trial court was not persuaded by John’s contention that he could not comply 

with the court’s order. The court observed that John was the sole trustee of PSRT and that 

he was one of two members of ETF. John had not asked the trial court for relief due to an 

inability to perform because of his fiduciary responsibilities to PSRT and his lack of control 

over the database. John had not asked for additional time to complete the task of extracting 

the Eagle Forum information from the larger database. The court pointed out that John and 

Martin had submitted affidavits, dated April 26, 2016, in which they averred that Eagle 

Forum and EFELDF jointly maintained proprietary membership, donor, contact lists. The 

court concluded, therefore, that “John simply did not want to produce the list information 

and data and was willing to withhold it” despite the directive in the Amended TRO. The 

court found that John’s failure to comply with the order to produce the lists was “willful 
23 

and without reasonable excuse,” and held him in indirect civil contempt. John was ordered 

to deliver an electronic or hard copy of the contact lists of the members, donors, and leaders 

referred to in the Amended TRO, and the court imposed a conditional sanction on John to 

coerce his compliance.

¶ 58 In this case, John had the burden to demonstrate a legitimate inability to comply 

with the Amended TRO. People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (1st) 162876, ¶ 20; Killion v. 

City of Centralia, 381 Ill. App. 3d 711, 715 (2008). After evaluating the credibility of the 

witnesses and weighing the evidence, the trial court reasonably concluded that John failed 

to demonstrate a legitimate inability to comply with that order. The trial court also 

concluded there was a need to enforce the Amended TRO. 

¶ 59 In this appeal, John argues that by the time the September 21, 2020, Contempt Order 

was entered, the reason for ordering production of the lists had been resolved. John 

contends that the trial court denied Eagle Forum’s claim to ownership of the lists in an 

order entered August 4, 2020, and as a result, the provision in the Amended TRO requiring 

delivery of the lists should have been deemed to have no further legal effect. He further 

contends that once the provision requiring delivery of the lists expired, there was no basis 

for holding him in indirect civil contempt. We disagree with John’s underlying premise. In 

the order of August 4, 2020, the trial court found that Eagle Forum failed to meet the burden 

of proof necessary to award a declaratory judgment or a summary judgment in its favor on 

the issue of ownership of the lists. When the trial court ordered John to produce the lists in 

the Contempt Order, the court specifically stated that its order should not be construed as

determining “that Eagle Forum, Eagle Trust Fund or EFELDF has an interest in any such 
24 

list or information contained therein that is superior to any other person or entity.” In other 

words, the trial court had not yet decided the issue regarding ownership of the lists. The 

Amended TRO did not “expire.” John was required to comply with its terms. Our courts 

have the power to preserve the status quo of the parties and the subject matter of the 

litigation until a final determination is made. When John was ordered to deliver the contact 

lists, the trial court had not made a final decision regarding ownership of the lists.

¶ 60 The purpose of the Contempt Order was to compel future compliance through the 

production of the information in the above referenced contact lists. In an affidavit of 

compliance dated October 15, 2020, and accompanying letter of transmittal, John indicated 

that a flash drive containing the lists described in paragraph 1 of the Contempt Order had 

been delivered to Eagle Forum. Thus, John’s contention that the Contempt Order failed to 

identify any current contempt from which John could purge himself is not supported by the 

record. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in finding John in indirect civil contempt for failing to produce the contacts list information. 

¶ 61 The trial court also held John in indirect civil contempt for his failure to deliver the 

Eagle Forum tax returns, financial statements, checks, and bank records in a timely manner. 

The court noted that there was evidence to show that John was the Treasurer of Eagle 

Forum from 2000 until 2016, and that as Treasurer, John had ready access to the financial 

and corporate documents of Eagle Forum. The court further noted that during testimony, 

John admitted that he failed to produce all of the documents in a timely fashion. In addition,

documentary evidence revealed that financial statements, tax returns, and electronic files 

had not been provided to Eagle Forum until approximately 20 months after the Amended 
25 

TRO was issued. Again, the trial court observed that John did not ask for additional time 

to produce the documents or any other relief. The court concluded that John’s failure to 

timely comply with its order “strongly” suggested that his conduct was willful. The court 

found John in indirect civil contempt and ordered him to deliver to Eagle Forum any and 

all corporate records of Eagle Forum, including financial, accounting records, and tax 

records, in his actual or constructive possession.

¶ 62 Paragraph 2 of the Contempt Order required John to deliver all corporate, financial, 

and tax records in John’s actual or constructive possession. In his affidavit of compliance 

dated October 15, 2020, John stated that he turned over all of the documents and 

communications described in paragraph 2 of the Contempt Order. Again, John’s contention 

that the Contempt Order failed to identify any ongoing contempt from which John could 

purge himself is incorrect. The purpose of the Contempt Order was to compel future 

compliance through the production of the Eagle Forum records in John’s possession. After 

reviewing the record, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in finding John 

in indirect civil contempt for failing to deliver Eagle Forum’s corporate, financial, and tax 

records to Eagle Forum. 

¶ 63 The trial court also found John in indirect civil contempt for failing to provide Eagle 

Forum with a garage door opener and keys to an office in Washington, D.C. During the 

hearing, John testified that EFELDF and ETF were the leaseholders on the property, and 

that an EFELDF employee delivered the keys and garage door opener to the landlord of 

the property. John thought the keys should be given to the landlord, rather than to Eagle 

Forum. The trial court found that Eagle Forum offered two documents that rebutted John’s 
26 

testimony. These documents demonstrated that Eagle Forum was the leaseholder of the 

property, and that Eagle Forum sublet a portion of that property to EFELDF and ETF. 

¶ 64 John also argued that the trial court should not hold him in contempt for refusing to 

provide access to the D.C. office, because it was no longer possible to purge the contempt. 

John pointed out that the lease expired on January 31, 2017, more than 31⁄2 years before the 

contempt finding, and that Eagle Forum admitted that the D.C. office was “no longer leased 

by Eagle Forum.” The trial court recognized that the refusal to return the keys and opener 

to Eagle Forum was arguably of little importance at that point, except to illustrate an 

ongoing disregard for the court’s orders and authority. The court found that John’s failure 

to deliver the keys and opener, coupled with his delay in turning over other items of 

property as required, demonstrated a “level of willfulness more than adequate to support 

an order of contempt.” The court found John in willful contempt for failing to turn return 

the keys and door opener to Eagle Forum as required. 

¶ 65 Civil contempt is intended to provide a coercive penalty to compel future 

compliance, and a valid purge condition is a necessary part of an indirect civil contempt 

order. Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382, 391 (2007); Betts, 200 Ill. App. 3d at 46. The 

contemnor must be capable of taking the action sought to be coerced, and the sanction must 

be vacated when it is no longer fulfilling its coercive function. Hayden, 361 Ill. App. 3d at 

1029. While we understand the trial court’s view that John’s conduct was an illustration of 

his seeming disregard for the court’s authority, the record demonstrates that John did not 

have the ability to purge himself of this violation of the Amended TRO. As a result, the 

trial court erred in finding that John was in indirect civil contempt for failing to deliver the 
27 

keys and garage door opener to Eagle Forum, and that finding is hereby vacated. Felzak, 

226 Ill. 2d at 391-92. 

¶ 66 C. Eagle Forum’s Cross-Appeal 

¶ 67 In a cross-appeal, Eagle Forum challenged the trial court’s finding that John was 

not in indirect civil contempt for failing to turn over domain names, domain hosts, and 

associated emails. Eagle Forum also challenged the trial court’s findings that defendant 

Martin was not in indirect civil contempt of the Amended TRO relative to holding himself 

out as an Eagle Forum representative and failing to deliver domain names, domain hosts, 

and associated emails. These rulings are interlocutory in nature. They are not final and 

appealable under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5), and absent an express written finding 

under Supreme Court Rule 304(a), we are without jurisdiction to consider them.

Accordingly, Eagle Forum’s cross-appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

¶ 68 Finally, during the briefing of this appeal, John filed a motion to strike a separate 

appendix filed by Eagle Forum, and Eagle Forum filed a response in opposition to the 

motion to strike. The motion was taken with the case and is hereby denied.

¶ 69 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 70 In summary, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding John 

in indirect civil contempt for violating the Amended TRO by (a) failing to turn over the 

contact list of 14,000 Eagle Forum members and at least some of the contacts lists of 41,000 

emails used by Eagle Forum for purposes of sending mass emails, and (b) failing to 

produce Eagle Forum corporate records. The trial court correctly concluded that there was 

a current need to enforce the Amended TRO. The Contempt Order and the penalties were 
28 

imposed for the purpose of compelling future compliance through the production of the 

aforementioned property. The trial court abused its discretion, however, in finding John in 

indirect civil contempt for failing to deliver the keys and garage door opener for the office 

in Washington, D.C., to Eagle Forum, and that finding is hereby vacated. Accordingly, the 

trial court’s order finding John in indirect civil contempt is affirmed in part and vacated in 

part. John’s appeal from the trial court’s finding of statutory contempt and Eagle Forum’s 

cross-appeal are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

¶ 71 Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and dismissed in part.