No. 2-09- 1078 File d: 12-30-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ RIC HARD A. D UNC AN ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f La ke Co un t y. Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 01-- L--374 ) BERVIN PETERSON AND THE MOODY ) CHURCH, ) ) De f en da n ts ) ) Ho no r ab le (Hope Chur

ch , Pl ai ntif f ; Erwi n L utzer, ) Da vidM. Ha ll, Def endan t-App el l an t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEHU TC HI

NS ON de l i v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: De f en da n t, Erwin Lutzer, appeals the tri al

court 's j udgme

nt entered on a j ury v

erdict i n f av or of plaint iff , R ichard Dunc an, on p laintiff's co mplaintalleging cl ai ms of f al se l igh t inv asion of pri

vacy and conspi

racy. Def endan t contends t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed wh en it f ai l ed to gra nt h i s m oti on f or judg ment notwi

thstan di ng th e v erdi ct. In the al

ternative, def

endan t contends that the trial

court erred wh en it faile d t o gr an t a n ew t r ial. We affir m. T his matt er was initiat ed w hen plaint iff and Hope Church f

il ed a co mplaint ag ainst plaint iff 's form er chur ch and its s enior clerg y after t he se nior pas t or at t he for mer chu rc h sent a bund l e of l etters to board m

em bers of Hope Chur

ch
. Th e b un dle of l ette rs con

tai ne d l an gua geac cu si ng pl ai nti f f of having an ex t r ama r it al a ffair , filing a d ivo r ce pe t it i on ag ai n st his wife, misusing c hur ch fund s, a ndNo. 2-- 09--1078

-2-

abusi ng alc o ho l. T he b und le o f let t er s a lso co nt aine d la ngu ag e p ur po rt ing t o st rip pla int iff o f hi s ordi na ti on as a m in is ter and requestin

g that he no lo ng er fu nc t io n ina min ist er ial c ap ac it y. The trial courti ni tia l l y determ i n ed th at the e cc les ias t ica l ab st en t io n d o ct r ine ap plie d a ndt hu s fo un d t ha t it la cked su bj ec t matter j urisd

i cti on to h ea r pl ai nti f f s' cl ai m s. It gra nte d de f en da nts ' m oti on f or sum mary j udgm en t. This co ur t re ver sed , ho lding t hat t he ec cl es i as ti cal ab stenti on d octri ne di d n ot appl y. See Duncan v. Pete rs on , 359 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 34 (20 05). On

rem an d, th e j ury f oun d de f en da nt, the seni or pa stor of the f ormer ch urch , l i ab l e an

d awa rded p l ai ntif f $276,3 06 i

n da mages . Defe

ndan t appealed. The evi dence adduce d at tr ia

l e stablis hed the f oll owing. In

1989, plai

ntif f was ordained as a m i ni ster by the Mood y Ch urch. For t he n ext se ver al yea rs , p laint iff worked in that capaci

ty unde r de f en da n t. In 1992, pla

in tif f resi gned h is positi on with the Moody Church in order t o be co me the
seni orpasto r for t he Vill

age Ch ur ch of Li nc ol ns hi re. Sub se que

ntl y , wi th th e h el p of som e f el l ow churchgoers, i

nc l udi ng R obert Dickman, Al

vi n Pucci nel li, and Al bert Nader, plai

ntif f f ounded Hope Chur ch. Di

ck man , Pucc i

ne l l i , an d N ad er b ec am

e b oard mem be rs of Ho pe C hur ch. In 2 000 , p laintiff's
ma rriage expe rience d difficulties , a nd in Mar ch 20 00 p laintiff's wife fil ed fo r d ivor ce. Plaint iff

so ught and re ceived an o rd er of p ro t ect ion ag ainst his wife afte r she gave Pu ccinelli doc ument s t hat she cl ai me d were e- mai l s b etw een

pl ai n ti f f an d a n oth er wom an . Pu cc i n el l i ga v e th e docu men ts to Nade r. Dur ingth e divo rc e p ro ce ed ings , N ad er t es t ified o n be half o f pla int iff's w ife, and pla int iff's w ife
ac cu se d p laint iff o f ab us ing alc o ho l. In la te March 2000, Nader cal le d defen dant and i nf ormed him t ha t pla int iff's mar r iag e w as in tro uble. Su bseq uent ly, Dickman a nd Na der met w ith d efenda nt and t he board of elders of the Moody Church to dis cus s pl

ai ntif f 's marriage. In Apri

l 2000 pl ai ntif f recei ved a l etter dated April

23, 2000,
an d s i gn ed b y "Th e E l dersof

Moo dy Ch ur ch ," i n cl udi n g def en da n t. Th e l ette r p rov i de d i n pa rt:No. 2-- 09--1078

-3- "1. Yo u have had an

im proper re latio nship wit h a divo rc ed s ingle wo man, vio lating the B i bl i cal teach i ng th at an elder b e ' ab ove re

proach .' 2. You r decisi on to fi

le a di vorce petition aga

in st your wif

e vi olates the Bi

bl ic al adm oni tion that h usb ands a re to l ove thei

r wi ve s ' as Christ l oved

the chur ch [.]' 3. You r m i su se of al coh ol violates the Bi

bl ic al adm onition that anel der be 'tem perate, self-controlled.' *** 4. Yo ur misuse o f per so nal funds a s we ll as the decei tful means u sed t o o bt ain the Hope Church

Bank acc oun

t violates the Bi

bl ic al adm onition that an elder shoul d not be a 'l over of m oney .' *** * * * We want to give y

ou anopp ortu

n i ty to re ply to t hese char ges . I f you c ont act any one of u s befo re Thu rsd ay, Ma y 4, 2 000 , w e will be glad t o s et up a meet ingwi th y ou to whi ch we will in vi te the former m

em bers of y our church B oard, and i f n ecessary, other witnesses.
*** If yo u d o no t r ep ly t o us by t he Ma y 4 d at e, we wil l have no cho ice but t o r esc ind y our ordi na tion to the Ch ri sti an m i nistry that we gran ted y ou." In re sp o nse t o t he le t t er , p laint iff co nt ac t ed Jo hn We lch, a s igna t o ry o f t he le t t er . P laint iff deni ed t he all egations and in

quired as to why

the Moo dy Ch

urch was gett in

g in volved i n his personal aff

airs. On May 5, 2000, plai

ntif f recei ved a second l

etter from the Moody Church, requesting that pl ai n ti f f appe ar i n pers on i n f ron t of i ts ex ecuti v e c om m i ttee . Th e l ette r s tate d i n pa rt: "[G iven] the seri ousness of this ma tt er, we have c

hosen this Monday

even in g, May 8, to ma ke
a final decision r ega rd ingyour credential s f or mi ni stry that wecon f erred upon you. I f youNo. 2-- 09--1078

-4-

are un willing t o ap pe ar , wit h d ee p r eg r et we will ha ve t o r es cin d yo ur o r din at io n an d l i censi ng." Plai ntif f di d not att end the May

8, 2000, meeti

ng of the M oody Church

executi ve com mi tt ee. Pla int iff subse quently

recei ved a thi rd letter from the M oody Church , dated May 9, 2000, and signed b y de fen dant and an

ot her Moody Ch

urch el der, Bervi n Peterson. The l etter stated: "T his l ette r i s to i

nf orm youthat last ni

ght, May 8, 2000, the Executiv e Comm ittee of t he Mo od y Churc h, upo n t he r eco mmendat ion o f the Elde rs, vot ed t o r esc ind t he licensing and ordin ation that this

body c onferred to you i

n March , 1989.
*** Effect iveimm

ediat ely, in li

ght of ourdec ision t o r evo ke yo ur licensing and or dinat ion, we now request the followi ng: 1. Tha t you n o lon ger f unc tion i n the rol e of

m i nister. 2. That you no longer acceptthe ti tl e ' Reve ren d'Du nc an , or 'Pas t or ' Dunc an, or any oth er suc h t itle t hat wo uld imply that you ha ve cr ede nt ials for spirit ual lead er ship and minis t ry. 3. Tha t you i nf orm th e leade rsh i p an d m em bersh i p of Hope Chur

ch of our a cti on." Bef ore pl ai n ti ff rece ived his o wn co py of t he Ma y 9, 2 000 , let t er , his childr en's g uar dian ad litem showed him a co py of t he let t er at a disso lut ion p ro cee ding
. Thi s copy i ncl uded a cover l etter , sign

ed by de fen da nt . T he co ve rlet t er wa s a dd r es se d t o Pu cc ine lli, D ic kma n, and Nader and n

ot ed three enclosures: the April 23, 2 000 , let te r; t he May 5, 2 000 , let te r; and t he May 9, 200 0, lett er . T he
cover le tt er stated, "We are sendi

ng y ou t hi s i nf ormation an

d it i s up to you asto wh

at is d on e wi th i t."No. 2-- 09--1078

-5-

On May 8, 2001, pla

in tif f an d Hope Chur ch filed t heir co mplaint ag ainst defend ant , P et er so n, and the Moody Church, based upon the l etter s. The trial

court granted

sum mary j udg men t i n f av or of defen dants. Plai

ntif f an d H op e Church

appealed, and thi s court r em anded the cas e after det er mini ng that genui

ne i ssues of

ma terial fact ex is ted to preclude

summary judg ment o n plaint iff 's fal se-ligh t-inv asion-of-priv

acy and conspi

racy c la im s. See Duncan, 359 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 34. Th

i s court aff irm ed the j udgme

nt agai nst Hope Church, b ecause n o injury was

alle ged agai nst it. On rem

and, t he trial court entertaine d defen

dant's m ot ion to bar the testim

ony of a wo ma n wh o all eged that defend ant ha d t o uc he d h er inapp r o pr iat ely, bu t it ult imat ely d en ie d de fen dant's motion. The case proceed ed to a j ury

tri al . A ve rdi ct w assu bs eq ue ntl y en tere d agai ns t de f en da nt a nd i n f av or of pla int iff in the a mou nt of $ 276 ,3 06. Pet er so n and t he Moody Church were found n

ot li abl e. Defend ant tim

el y a ppeal ed. Ho pe Ch ur ch , Pe t er so n, an d t he Mo o dy C hu r ch ar e n o t pa r t ies t o t his ap pe al. Defend ant 's in

itial contention i s that the trial court erred when i

t faile d t o g ra nt defend ant 's
m oti on for judg ment no t wit hst anding t he v erdi ct. We rev

ie w de no vo a t rial co ur t 's de cision t o d eny a motion f or ju dgm en t notwi thstan di ng th e v erdi ct. Tho rnt on v. Gar cini , 382 Ill . App. 3d 813, 817 (2008 ), ci ting McCl

ure v. Owens

Cornin g Fi berglas Corp. , 18 8 I ll. 2d 102, 132 (1999). The trial
co ur t may e nt er jud gme nt no t wit hst an din g t he ve r dic t o nly when, viewing t he evide nce in t he light mostfavorab l e to the n

onm ovi ng p arty , i

t so overw

he l m i ngl y f avors the m ovan t that a con

trary
verdict coul

d not stan d. Wi ll ia ms v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 371 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 5, 106 ( 2007)
. In su ppor t of hi s contention, def

endan t argues that (1) the undi sputed facts establ is hed that th e trial court did n

ot have subj ect matter juri sdi ction to decide the f al se-ligh t-inv asion-of-pr ivac y cla im; (2) the undi sputed facts establ is hed that t he f al se-ligh t-inv asion-of-priv

acy cl ai m i s def eatedNo. 2-- 09--1078

-6-

by the r eligion and spe ech c lause s o f the f i rs t am en dm en t as re ad i n to th e f our tee n th am en dm en t to t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion; ( 3) t he und isput ed fac t s est ablished t hat t he false -lig ht -inv as io n- o fpriv acy clai m i s de f eated b y cond i tion al pri vi l ege;and (4) pl

ai ntif f 's f ail ure to prove

the n ece ssa ry ele men t s o f his f

als e- ligh t - inva sio n- o f- pr iva cy c laim p r ec lud ed a ju dg men t in his f avor. We rev

ie w eac h of d efenda nt 's ar gument s in tu rn. Defend ant argues that the trial court erred when i

t den ie d his mot ion fo r jud gment notwithst andi

ng the verdict, because t he un dis pu t ed fac t s a t t r ial e st ab lishe d t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not have subj ect ma

tt er ju r isd ict io n t o de cid e t he fa lse
- lig ht
- inv as io n- o f- pr iva cy c laim
. S pe cif ica lly, defend ant as se r t s t ha t t he ec cle sia st ic al abst ent ion d oc t rine p re clude s t he judiciar y from involving it se lf in ma tt ers wi thin the ch urc h, includ ing t he Mo od y Churc h's de cision t o r evo ke p laintiff's ordi na ti on and i ts conduct o f dissem

in ating the le tt ers regardin

g the re voc at ion of p laintiff's ordi na ti on. Th e e cc l es i as ti cal

ab stenti on doctr in e provides

t hat civil cour t s may not det er mine the
correctness of

i n ter preta ti on s of ca n oni ca l tex t or s om e dec i si on s rel ati n g to g ov er

n men t of th e reli giouspol i ty;rathe r, cou rtsm ust ac cept as

gi ven w ha teve r the re l i gi ous en

tity deci des
. Serbian Eastern Orthodo x Di

ocese v. Mi

li voje vich , 426 U.S. 696, 709, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 163, 96 S. Ct . 2372, 2380 (1976). We review de no vo whet her t he t rial co ur t had s ubject matt er jurisd ictio n. Blou nt v. Stro ud , 232 Ill . 2d 302, 308 (2 009). W e d eterm i ne tha t the ec cl es i as ti cal ab stenti on d octri ne di d n ot app ly and tha t t hus t he t rial co ur t had s ubject matt er jurisd ictio n. The issue o f whet her t he do ct rine of eccl esiastical abstention depriv

ed the trial court of sub

je ct
ma tt er jurisdi ction was discussed b y thi s court in i

ts previ ous opini

on. See Duncan, 35 9 I ll. App. 3d 1034. When

we reversed the tri al

court 's order grantin

g sum ma ry j udgme nt, we hel d:No. 2-- 09--1078

-7- "We det er mine that we d o no t ne ed to i n qui rei n to or i n ter pr et rel i gi ous matte rsto de ci dewhether th

e M ay 9, 2 000 , l ette r ** * w asa torti ousi nv as i on o f p r iva cy. W e a

re n ot req ui red to l ook at reli gious doctrine

or bib li cal underpi nni ngsof t he Mo od y Churc h's right to rev okean ordi na ti on to determi

ne wh ether defen

dants' conduct i

nva ded [plai ntif f' s] priv acy by publishing false infor matio n. * ** T he har m alleged in t he co mplaintresulted f ro m the alle ged conduct of defen

dan ts i n pl aci ng [plai ntif f] i n a f al se l igh t when revoki

ng that
or dinat ion. *** [W]e m ay r evi ew de f

endan ts' c onduc

t in carry i ng out the rev

ocati on." Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1046. Defend ant asserts that the eccle si astical abstention doctr in

e was "n ot rai se d or

addr es se d w i

th respectto the

publ i ca ti on of the ordi na ti on r ev oca ti on in the fi rst appeal." Def

endan t mi sconstrues
our pr ev i ous opi n i on . We dete

rm i n ed th at pub l i ca

ti on of th e l ette r' s c on ten ts a n d th e tor ti ous ef f ec ts t he pu blica t io n ha d u po n pla int iff wer e no t beyond t he r eac h of t he trial court . Specif

ic ally , we stated, "D eciding whether def

endan ts publis hed a l etter pla ci ng [plai ntif f] i n a f al se l igh t, by ap pearin g t o revoke [plai

ntif f' s] abi li ty to be a m

in is ter and p as tor at Ho pe C hur ch, do es no t re quir e ext ensive in quiry in to reli gious law an

d polity." Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1046. Defend ant f

urth er a ss erts tha t our op i ni on in Br us s v. Pr zybylo , 385 Il l . Ap p. 3d 39 9 (200 8), dir ec t ly confl icts with our

hold ing in Duncan

reg ard i ng whether th

e e cc l es i as ti cal

ab stenti on do ct rine preclude d sub j ect m atter j uri sdi

cti on. We di sag

ree. In Bruss , this court was asked to resolve whether t he ec clesiast ical abst ent ion d oc t rine p re clude d a t rial co ur t fro m compe lli ng t he su spe nsion a nd term i na ti on o f a p r ies t fr o m a p ar t ic ular chur ch an d de term i ni ng i f the res ul ts of a c hu rch el ec ti on sho uld be invalidat ed. We answ er ed t he qu est ion in t he affir mati ve , hol di ng th at "the more ci rcums pect appr oach

i s to r es t t he ab st en t io n d ec isio n e nt ire ly on the sub j ect m atter of th e di spute."No. 2-- 09--1078

-8-

Bruss , 385 Ill . App. 3d at 421. In that case, although the pla in tif fs fram ed their cl ai m as one bas ed in pr op er t y right s, t he t hru st of t he disp ut e's su bject matt er co ncer ned t he fitne ss o f the priestand t he qua lif icat ions of c er t ain vot ing members w ithin t he co ngr ega t ion; pr ope rty ri gh ts we r e in vo lve d o nly inc id en t ally. Bruss , 3 85 I ll. App. 3d a t 415 . T he same ca nnot be sa id o f the subjec t matt er in the case bef ore us. In the present m atter , the subj ect matter of the dis pute is wh

ether defen

dant in vaded plaint iff 's privacy by placi ng hi m i n a f alse light w hen de fendant di sse m i na ted to in di vi dual s wh o were not members o f the Mo od y Churc h a bund le of let t er s re gar ding p laintiff'sconduct . B eca use t he subj ect ma

tt er of thi s dispute i

s groun ded i n f al se l i ght i nv asi on of pri vacy, Duncan

does not co nf

li ct wit h ou r o pinion in Bruss . Mo re ove r, altho ugh d efenda nt cite s six o pinions fr o m fo r eig n ju r isd ict io ns in su pp o r t o f his
ar gument that the

ecc l esi asti cal ab sten tion doctri ne precl uded the tri al court 's sub

je ct matter jurisd ictio n, we d et er mine that eac h is dist inguishable. In Ad Hoc Com

m i ttee of P ari sh

i oners of Our Lady of the Sun Catho li

c Church, Inc. v. Reiss , 223 Ariz. 505, 22 4 P.3d 100 2 ( App. 201 0) , t he Arizo na Court of Appea

ls determi ned that the ecclesiastical abstention doctr in

e applie d to cl ai

m s re gar ding a pries

t's fi tness to be el ected asdi

rector an d pr es i de nt of a congregational

church. Un

li ke t he cas e cu rr ent ly before us, in Reiss , the c our t wa s a sk ed to i n ter pr et th e j ob ri gh ts and q ualificat ions of clerg y within achur ch. In d eclining to do so , t he co ur t det er mined t hat a " ' ministe r's employment
r ela t io nsh ip wit h his chur ch implicate s inte rna l chur ch disc ipline, faith, and o rg anizat ion, all of whi ch are go verned by

ecclesi astical rul e, cust om, and law.' " Reiss , 223 Ari z. at 517, 224 P. 3d at 1014, quo t ing Hutchi son v. Thom as , 78 9 F
. 2d 39 2, 39 6 ( 6t h C ir. 19 86 )
. Ag ain , in t he cu rr ent matt er , t he subj ect ma

tt er of the di spute is wh

ether defen

dant in vaded pl ai ntif f' s priv acy by placing him in a

false lightwhen d efenda nt disseminat ed a bundle o f lett er s t o ind ividuals who wer e no t members o f theNo. 2-- 09--1078

-9-

Moody Chur ch. Bec aus e, her e, t he le tt ers were not tr ansm

itted only withi n the Moody

Chur ch, t he subjec t matt er of t he disp ut e do es no t co ncer n matt er s inte rna l to t he Mo od y Churc h. In Re n tzv. Wern

er , 156 W ash. A

pp. 423 , 23 2 P. 3d 1 169(20 10) , th e W ashi ng ton C ourt of Ap pe als determi

ned that the ecclesiastical abstention doctr in

e applie d to cl ai

ms regardin g whether
a mi ni ster at a church had ex

ceeded her aut hor ity when s he exp elled se ver al members. Again, Re n tz is dist inguishable fr om t he pr ese nt matt er beca use t he su bject matt er of t he dispute i n Re n tz concerned

inter nal matt er s o f chur ch g ove rna nce, while the subjec t matt er her e co ncer ns t he disseminat ion o f inf

or matio n abo ut plaint iff

t o member s o ut side o f the Mo od y Churc h. In Og l e v . Ch

urch of God , 153 Fed. Appx . 371 (6th Ci r. 2 005 ), the U

ni ted State s C ourt of Ap pe als fo rt he Six t h C irc uit de t er mined t ha t t he ec cle sia st ica l ab st en t io n d o ct r ine pr ec lu de d it s subj ect matt er jurisd ictio n t o d ecide whet her a chu rc h had invad ed t he privacy of and def

am ed a bi sh op whom i

t accu se d o f sexu al impro pr iety. The app eals co ur t det er mined t hat , a ltho ugh t he
co mplaintf

oun de d i ts c l ai m s i n de f am ati on , the s ub j ec t m atte r of th e d i spute was the church's i

nternal disciplinary pr oc edu re s. T he Og le cas e is dist inguishable fr om t he pr ese nt matt er beca use , in Og le , none of al

le ged defa

ma to ry i nf ormation was

dis sem in ated bey ond the church

that made th e alle gations, an

d, thus, the subj ect matter concerned church governanc e. In Higgi ns v . Maher , 210 Cal. A

pp. 3d11 68 , 25 8 C al. Rp t r . 75 7 ( 19 89 ) , a C alifo rnia ap pe als courtheld t hat t he ec clesiast ical abst ent ion d oc t rine pr eclud ed it fro m det er mini ng whether a priest suf fered de fama t io n a nd inva sio n o f pr iva cy w he n, wit ho ut his permission, a church di ss em i n ate d to ot her dio ces es w ithin its o rg anizat ion infor matio n re gar ding certain m edi cal treat me nt and diagnoses he recei ved. However, unl

ike in the present m

at t er , in Higgins , the in

form ation was dissem

in ated
o nly t o o t he rdio ce se s w it hin t he sa me c hu r ch o r ga niz at io n. T hu s, t he dis se min at io n o f t heNo. 2-- 09--1078

-10-

i nf orm ati on was categorized as an

in ternal ch ur ch pr o ce du r e. Ag ain , t his is no t t he ca se in t he pr ese nt
ma tt er, as the Moody

Ch ur ch h as n o au th ori ty ove r Hop e C hu

rch an d, h en ce , th e di ss em

i na ti on of t he let t er s at issue w as no t an inte rna l pro ced ur e o f the Mo od y Churc h. Defend ant cites Al

f ordv. Uni

ted St ates , 1 16 F . 3 d 33 4 ( 8t h Cir. 199 7) , fo r t he prop osi ti on that a ch ur ch h as th e ri gh t to co n trol i ts cl erg y , si m i l ar to a sta te b ar a ss oci

ati on' s ri gh t to con trol it s l awy ersand to publ

i sh i ts di sci pli na ry determ i na tions. A l though thi s m ay be true, i t does not bear directl y on the is sue pres en

tl y b ef oreth i s c our

t, wh eth er de f en da n t' s d i ss em i n ati on of th e l ette rsto in div idua l me mb ers of Hope Church

constituted false l

igh t inv asion of pri

vacy. Fu r t he rmo r e, wh ile
a ba ras so cia t io n d o es pu blish a d ec isio n t o r emo ve a n ame fr o m it s r o ll of a ttorney s, i

t doe s n ot pu blis h a list o f a ll al leg at io ns , let alo ne pu blis h a lleg at io ns wit ho ut an y inq ui ry. Defend ant ci

tes Kinder v. We bb , 239 Ark. 1101, 396 S.W .2d 823 (19 65) , f

or th e p ropos i

ti on that "[i] t is firml

y set t led t hat t he civ il co ur t s w ill no t as su me jurisdi ction of a di spute in volv in g church do ct rine or d isci

pli ne unl ess proper ty rights are in

volved." Ki

nder , 239 Ark. at 1102, 396 S.W.2d at 82 4. While we ac kn o wle dg e t ha t t he pr es en t mat t er do es no t invo lv e p rop erty ri ghts and are mi ndf ul o f Ki nder 's pe rsu asive au t hor ity, w e inst ead follow t he approach we proclai me d in Bruss , 385 Ill . App. 3d 399, and ag ain determi ne that t he ec cle sia st ica l ab st en t io n d o ct r ine is no t ap plic ab le in t he present m

atter because

the general

subjec t matt er of t he dis

pute does not in

volv e i nternal church matters. Acco rd ingly, we c onc lude t hat t he tri al cou rt had sub

je ct matter juri sdi ction to hear pla int iff's cla im. De fend ant nex t ar gu es t hat t he u ndis pu t ed fac t s e st ablish ed t hat t he fa lse- light -inv as io n- o fpriv acy cl ai m i s def eated by the reli gion a nd speech cl auses of the f

irst am endm ent as re ad int o t he f our tee n th amendment t o t he Unit ed S t at es Co nst itu t ion. Sp ecifically, defend ant asse rt s t hat t he MayNo. 2-- 09--1078

-11-

9, 200 0, l ette r s erv i ng asthe basis f orthe cl ai m c onstituted reli

gious opi nions and, thus, i s protect ed speech under the f

irst am endm ent to t he Un

ited States Con st itu t ion. Pu t ano t her way, defend ant
asse rt s t hat , be cau se t he co nt ent s o f the lett er ar e r eligiou s o pinions a nd ca nnot be pr ove d false, no fal se-ligh t-inv asion-of-priv

acy claim can be su st ained, no matt er how der og at or y the co nt ent s o f the le tt ers m igh t be. We review de no vo whether a statemen t qualifi es as consti

tut iona ll y protected speech

under t he f i rst am endm en t. Schivar elli v. CBS, Inc. , 33 3 I ll. App. 3d 755, 760 (2002), citin g Dubinsk y v. Uni ted Ai rli nes M aster E xe cu t ive Co un cil , 303 Ill . App. 3d 317, 324 (1999). Where a publ is hed st at ement alle ged to be a fact i s actuall y an opi ni on, i t is protected b

y the f i rst am endm en t. Owen v. Carr , 113 Ill. 2d 273 , 2 80 ( 198 6) . T o d et er mine if an allege dly defamat or y sta t ement i s co nst it ut io na lly

prot ected under

th e f i rs t amen dmen t, or if i t can be reasonably

in terp reted as a st at eme nt o f ac t ua l fac t , t he emp ha sis is o n w he t he rt he st at eme nt co nt ain s a n o bje ct ive ly ver ifiab le
ass erti on. Sc hiva r elli , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 760. In the present m

atter , the diss em

in ated May 9, 2000, letter inc lud ed t he Ap r il 23, 2000, letter
as an en cl osure. The Apri l 23, 2000, le tt er stated al

l ac cu sa ti on s c on tai n ed wi th i n i t as f ac t, not as op inion. The

l etter stated, "Y ouhave had an im proper relati onsh

i p wi th a d i vorce d si ngl e wom an ," "Your deci

sion to fi l e a di vorce peti tion agai nst your w

i f e," "Your mi sus e of al

cohol," an

d "Your misuse of personal

fun ds ." Moreo ver, some of these factual al legations were fal

sehoods, such as

that pla int iff fil ed a divo rc e pe t itio n aga inst his w ife, and t he o t he r all ega t ions w er e st at ed w itho ut any invest igat ion, such as that plain tiff misused alcohol and personal funds. As the A

pril 23, 2000, letter
was enclosed wi

th the May 9, 2000 , l etter, i

t was p artof the publ

ic ation serv

in g as t he bas is for t he fal se-ligh t-inv asion-of-priv

acy cl ai m. Bec ause the A

pr il 23, 20 00, enclo sur e co nt ained false asse rt ionsNo. 2-- 09--1078

-12-

of f ac t, this argumen t fails . See Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1037-38 (May 9, 2000, le tt er in cl uded Apri l 23, 200 0, l etter an

d Ma y 5, 2000 , l etter as e

nc l osures ). De fend ant nex t ar gu es t hat t he u ndis pu t ed fac t s e st ablish ed t hat t he fa lse- light -inv as io n- o fpriv acy claim is defeat ed by co ndit ional pr ivil ege . S pec ifi

cally, de fendant asse rt s t hat , be cau se he sent t he l etters to only

the three me

n wh o brought t he ch

arges agai nst pl ai ntif f, each of whom had a n in terest in the matter , and because at t hat time the lett ers cont ain ed no knowingl

y f alse statements, condi tional priv il ege def eats plai ntif f' s clai m. W e di sagree. W hether pla in tif f' s f al se-ligh t-inv asion-of-priv

acy cl ai m i s def eated by condi tional priv il eg e is a legal que st ion; theref ore, our review is de no vo . Blou nt , 232 Ill . 2d at 308. Defendan t cites Solai a Te ch nol ogy , LLC v . Sp ec i al

ty Publ i sh i ng Co. , 221 Ill . 2d 558, 585 ( 20 06 ) , in su pp o r t o f his pos i ti on . Solaia Techn

ology specif ical ly regards t he f

air report privi

lege and provides, " ' [t]h e publ i ca ti on of def am atory matt er co ncer ning ano t her in a rep or t of a n official act ion o r p ro cee ding
orof a meeti ng ope n to the p ubl i c tha t deals wi th a m atter of p ubl i c con cern i s pri vi l eged i f the re port is ac cu ra te a n d c om pl ete or a fair abridgement of the occur rence repo rted .' " Solaia Techn ology , 221 I ll. 2d a t 585 , quoti

ng Re sta tem en t (Se con d) of Tort s §611 (1 97 7) . Th

ere a retwo req

ui re men ts to establi sh t he pr ivil ege : ( 1) t he repo rt must be o f an offi cial pro ceeding; and (2) t he report must be
com pl ete and accurate or a fai

r abridgem

ent of the off

ic ia l proceedi ng. Solaia Techn

ology , 22 1 I ll. 2d at 588. In t he cu rrent m atte r, the s tate men

ts c onta i ne d i n th e l ette rs are not a sum ma ry of an off ic ia l pr oc eed ingor a

su m mar y of a m eeti n g th at w as ope n to the publ

ic . The fa

ir report privi

le ge was designed to protect reportin

g of governm en t proceed i ngs . Solai a Te ch

nol ogy , 221 Ill . 2d at 587. We determ

i ne that i t does n ot exten d to the statemen

ts he re, b eca use they are n ot a re port o r sum mary of an of fi ci al proceedin

g, but are instead a seri es of a ccus ati ons a

nd r eque sts b y l eade rs ofNo. 2-- 09--1078

-13-

a church . See Euba

nks v. N orthwes

t Heral d New spa pers , 39 7 I ll. App. 3d 746, 749 (201 0); see also Solaia Techn

ology , 221 Ill . 2d at 588. Moreov er, as plai

ntif f poi nts out, even

if a condi tional priv il ege did exi st, it is i

mm aterial because it can

not surviv e the j ury' s f

in din gs attri al . A cc ordi

ng to Kuwi k v. Starmark StarMar ket ing & Adm in is trat ion, Inc
. , 156 Il

l . 2d 16, 2 4 (199 3), whi

ch b ot h parties

ci te, o ncea defe

ndan t establishes
a con di tion al pri vi l ege, a pl ai nti f f ca n ov erc ome th i s p ri vi l eg e if he orshe p ro ves t hat t he de fendant ei ther in tentional ly publ is hed the m aterial whi le knowin g the ma tt er was f al se or displ

ay ed a reckless di sreg ard as to the matter's f al sen ess . Ku wik , 15 6 I ll. 2d at 24. To o vercome a condi tional priv il ege, t he pl ai nti f f m us t sh owei ther a "dire ct intent ion t o injur e" o r a "re ckles s disr ega rd " o f the plaint iff 's rights. Ku wik , 156 I ll . 2d at 30. "[A]n abuse of a [conditional] priv il ege may consist of any

reckless act which sho ws a disre gar d fo r t he de famed pa rt y'srights." Ku wik , 156 Il l . 2d at 30
. Here , the j ury fou nd t hat , w hen t he let t er s we re sent , d efenda nt knew t hat t hey co nt ained false st at ement s o r he actedin reckle ss di srega

rd for whe the

r an y sta tem en ts w ere f alse . Th us , de f en da nt' s c l ai m of
co nd it io na l pr ivileg e w as o ve r co me b y t he jur y's fin din gs at t r ial. Defend ant next ar gu es t hat pla int iff's failu re t o pr o ve t he e lemen t s o f afalse -lig ht -inv as io n- o fpriv acy clai m precl uded a j udgm en t in his f avor. Speci

f i cal l y , def endan t asse rts tha t (1) there was no evi dence of a false statement i

n the May 9, 2000, le

tt er; (2) there was no evi

dence of actual m alic e; and (3) the evi

dence adduce d

at tria l did not su

pport that pl

ai ntif f wasplace d i

n a f al se l i ght b ef ore the publ ic
. As noted, a ju dg men t no t wit hst an din g t he ve r dic t sho uld be en tered only when the evi dence
so overwhel

mi ngl y f avors the m

ovant that no contr ary v

erdict i s possi

ble. Williams , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 106. To re cov

er f or a cl ai m of f alse -l i gh t-i n v as i on -of -p ri v acy , a pl ai n ti f f m us t p ro ve t ha t t he defend ant 's act ions p laced t he plaint iff in a f al se l i ght b ef ore t he pu blic, t hat t he false light wo uld beNo. 2-- 09--1078

-14-

hig hly of f ensi v e to a r eas ona ble per so n, a nd t hat t he def endan t acted wi th actual mal i ce. Sc hiva r elli , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 764. De fendant first asse rt s t hat t he evide nce a ddu ced at t rial did no t est ablish tha t t he Ma y 9 , 2000, le tt er containe d a fal

se statem ent. There can b e no cl ai m f or fal se-ligh

t-inv asion-of-priv

acy wit ho ut a fa lse st at eme nt be ing mad e b y t he de fen da nt ; it is t he es se nc e o f t he cla im. See Ki rchner
v. Gr eene , 29 4 I l l . A

pp . 3d 67 2, 6 83 (1 99 8) . H ere, th e M ay 9, 2 00 0, l

ette r s ta ted that plaint iff

's ordi na ti on from the Moody Church

was revoked. It t hen

requestedtha

t plai nti f f no l ong er f un cti on as a minis t er , t ha t he no lo ng er ac ce pt t he t it le of "R ever end" or "Pa st or ," and t hat he in form Hope Church of the Moody

Ch urch 's action. However, defen

dant testif ie d at tr ia l that he sent the May

9, 200 0, lett er t o P ucc inelli, D ickman, and Nader wi th both the April 23, 2000, letter and the May 5, 2000, le tt er att ached. The conten ts of those letters containe d fal sehoods, such

as that plai

ntif f f il ed
a div orce p etition against his wi fe. Because the l

etters we re dis sem in ated to gether as one package, it is im material whether the May 9, 2000, letter, by itsel f, contained f

alse statements. See Duncan, 359 Ill. App . 3 d at 103 7- 38. Thu s, w e de t er mine that t he jur y cou ld have fo und t hat defend ant publi shed fal se stat emen

ts. Defend ant nex

t asserts that t here was n

o evi dence of

actual m alic e. For a fi

ndi ng of m alic e, t he j ury needed to fi

nd that t he statements were made with knowledge that t hey were fal se or w i

th recklessdi sreg ard

f orwhether they

were true o r false. See Lovgren v. C itizens First Nat ional Ba nk of Pri nc eton , 1 26 I ll. 2d 4 11, 419 -2 3 ( 198 9) . H er e, defend ant t est ifi ed t hat he di

d n ot i n v esti ga te t he chargesi n the letters; he

did not ch

eck th e pub l i c rec ord rega

rdi ng th e ci rc ums tan ces sur ro unding p laintiff'sdis so lut io n pr o ce ed ings ; an d he did no t qu es t io n t ho se who ac cu se d p laint iff of th e beha vi ors st at ed in

th e l ett ers. Furt hermore, defendant test if ied that subsequent t o t he lett ers' disseminat ion, pla

in tif f requested that def

endan t cl ari f y th at th e M oody Ch ur ch h ad n o power

toNo. 2-- 09--1078

-15-

pre ve nt p l ai nti f f f rom ac ti ng aspa stor of Hope Church; defendant refused plain tiff 's request. Thus,
we de ter m i n e th at th e j ur y cou l d h av e f oun d th at def en da n t acted wi th actual ma li ce. See Lovgren , 126 Ill . 2d at 419-23. Next, defen

dant asserts that the evidence di d not support that plai

ntif f was pla ce d in a false lightbef ore t he pub li

c. To est abl

is h a f al se l igh t inv asion of pri

vacy , a plai ntif f m ust prove that he was in jured wh en he wa s p lac ed in

a f al se l i ght b ef ore the p ubl i c. Kole gas v. Hef

tel Broadcastin

g Corp. , 154 I l l . 2d 1, 1 7 (1992). Whi le the publ ic ity el em ent wi ll ordinari ly be sh own by a general publicat ion, thi

s c ourt h asrec og nized t ha t li

mi ted publi cation to recipients who are i n a speci al
re latio nship wit h t he plaint iff sat isfies the publ

ic ity el em ent. See Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1049. Thus, beca use of P ucc inelli 's, D ickman's, and N ade r's p os itio ns in Hop e Chu rc h, disseminat ion o f the l etters to th em

wa s a s h ar mf ul to pla int iff a s di ssem

in ation to t he pub li

c would h

ave b een. See Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1049. Defend ant asserts that the May 9, 2000, l etter was n ot a prox

i mate ca us e o f p lain t iff's inju ry. We de t er mine

t hat t he jur y cou ld have fo und that t he May 9, 2000, letter and its en

cl osures caused plaint iff 's i njury. The i

m pl i ca ti on that plai ntif f had an ex tram ari tal af f ai r, filed fo rdiv o r ce fr o m his spouse, abused al

cohol, and m

is used personal fun

ds wo uld be off

ensi ve to a reasonable person. See Sc hiva r elli , 33 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d at 76 4 ( "T o st at e a cla im fo ra f als e lig ht inv as io n o f p r iva cy, t he p laint iff
m ust [prove ] *** that the f al se l i ght woul d be hi ghl y off en si ve to the reas onab l e pers on"). Th e evi dence supported t hat, as a r esu lt o f defend ant disseminat ing t he bund le of let t er s, H op e Chu rc h's membe r ship dim

in is hed an d the church

could n o longer con ti n ue to em ploy pla in tif f. Plai ntif f testif ie d that he was un

abl e to get work as a mi

ni ster in any ot her church . The evi

dence supportedt he finding t hat plaint iff

suffer ed injur y as a r esu lt o f the lett er s' disse minatio n.No. 2-- 09--1078

-16-

Afte r r eviewing each of

defen dant's argum

ents, we co nclude t hat , w hen viewe d in t he light
m ost f av ora b l e to pla in tif f, the ev ide nce adduced a

t trial doe s n ot ov er wh el m i n gl y f av or d ef en da n t. Williams , 371 Ill . App. 3d a t 106 . T he evide nce w as su ffi cient for a jur y to have r uled in plaint iff 's f avor. Thus , we de

term i ne that the tria l court did not err w

hen it den i ed de f en da nt' s m oti on f or judg ment notwi

thstan di ng th e v erdi ct. Thorn ton , 382 Ill . App. 3d

at 817, citin

g McC l ure , 18 8 I ll. 2d at 132. Defend ant 's next contention i s that the trial court erred when

it f ai le d to grant defen

dant a new t r ial. Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , de f en da n t arguesthat (1 ) t he ver dict was aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evi dence; (2) the admission of evi dence of publ ic ation by people other

than def endan t was i m proper; (3) the ad m i ss i on of the testim

ony of a women who alle ged that defen

dant in appropriately

to uched her was an abuse

of the trial

court 's discretion; and (4) the trial court erredwhen

it restricted voi

r di re re late d t o r eligiou s mat t er s. We add re ss ea ch ar gument in tu rn. Defend ant firs t ar gu es t ha t t he ve r dic t wa s a ga inst t he man ifes t we ig h t o f the ev ide nce. Manifest weight is defined a s t hat weight which is clear ly evident, plain, a nd i ndi sputabl e. A

nd ers on v. B eers , 74 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 61 9, 623 ( 1979)
. A verdict i s agai nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce wh er e t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n is cl ea rl y ev i de nt or where the f i nd i ng s of the jury are unreasonab le , arbi trar y , or n ot ba sed on the evi den ce. A nd ers on , 74 Ill . App. 3d at 623. As we di scussed ab ove, t he evi dence adduce d at tr ia

l was suf f i cien t for a jury

to have rul

ed i n pl ai ntif f 's f avor. Ac co r di ng ly, we determi

ne that the verdi

ct was not agains

t t he m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. Defend ant nex

t ar gu es th at the adm

is si on of evi

dence of publ ic ation by people other than defend ant wa s i

m pr oper. S pe ci

f i ca l l y , de f en da n t as se rtsth at p l ai

n ti ff was not entitled to r ecover damag es ba sed upo n publicat ion o f the le tt ers by those ot her than de fen

dant. We di sagree. Here, defend ant 's cover le

tt er sta ted , " W e a

rese n di n g y ou th i s i n f orm ati on an d i t i s u p to y ou a s to whatNo. 2-- 09--1078

-17-

is don e wi th it." Defend ant 's pu blicatio n bega n t he sp re ad o f false informat ion t hro ugho ut t he
co mmu nit y, ult imately cau sing plaint iff 's injury. As w e st at ed in Duncan, "publ ic ity to these thre e men, wh o wi thi n a sh ort pe riod of tim e had b een l

eaders i n the Hope Church, would have been just
as devastat in

g as publi cation to the general publ ic b ecause of their close tie s to the c ongre gation." Duncan, 359 Ill . App. 3d at 1049. Defend ant ne xt ar gu es t ha t t he ad miss io n o f t he t es t imo ny o f a w o man wh o alle ged that defend ant in

appropriately

to uched h

er constituted an

ab us e of the tri al cou rt' s d i screti on. W e w i l l

not overturn an evi den tia ry ru l i n g of th e tr i al cou rt, ab sen t an a bus e of di scre tion
. Gunn

v. Sobucki , 216 Il l . 2d 602 , 608-0 9 (200 5). De fen da nt as se r t s t ha t t he ev ide nc e w as irr ele va nt an d p r eju dic ial. We dis agree. At t r ial, plaint iff t est ifi ed t hat his kno wledg e o f defend ant 's alle ged i nappropriate conduct wi th t he woman

was a source of contention b etween hi m a nd def endan t. Therefore, t he ev

ide nce was re levant t o s how mot ive as t o w hy defenda nt m i ght h av e wished to ha

rm plai ntif f 's reputati on. See Thom ps on v. Pe t it , 294 Ill . App. 3d 102 9, 1 035 (19 98)(In a c i vi l tri al , ev i de nc e of pri or acts of mi sconductare relev

ant to show motive). Because it was reasona

ble that plai

nt if f 's kn owl edgeof defen dant's al le ged conductwit h t he wo man co uld have affe ct ed ho w d efe nd an t vie we d p laint iff, it
w as withi n the trial court 's discretion to all

ow the test im

ony. See Thom

ps on , 294 Ill . App. 3d

a t 1035. Defend ant nex

t argues that t he trial

court erred when i

t restr icted vo ir

di re related to reli gious matters. Th e p ur po se o f voi r di re duri ng jury sel ection i s to i

m pan el an i m partial j ury . Limer v. Casassa , 273 Ill . App. 3d 300, 302 (1995). T he trial court hast he pr imary resp ons ibil ity for initiat ing and conductin

g voi r di re , a nd t he s co pe and ext ent o f voi r di re ar e w it hin

i ts soun d di scre tion
. Rub
v. Consoli

dated Rail C orp. , 331 Ill . App. 3d 692, 696 (2002), citin g Dixson v. Uni

versi ty of Ch ic ago Ho sp it als & Cl

in ic s , 190 Ill . App. 3d 369, 376 (19 89) . Up on r

ev i ew , an ab us e of discr et ion will beNo. 2-- 09--1078

-18-

fou nd o nly if the trial court 's conduct preven

ted the selection of an

i m partial j ury . Rub , 331 Ill . App. 3d at 696 , c iting Di

xs on , 19 0 I ll. A

pp . 3d at 3 76 . G en

eral l y , w h en re l i gi ous af f i l i ati on i s rel ev an t to pot entia l prejudi ce, subj ects related

to reli giousaff il ia tion are proper subj ects of i nqui ry duri ng vo ir di re . Co ngr ega t ion o f the Pas sion, Hol y Cros s P rovi

nc e v . Touc

he Ros s & Co. , 159 Ill . 2d 137, 167 (1994 ). Here, h owev er , b oth pl ai n ti f f an d def en da n t w e re Christ ian mini

st er s; t hus q ues t ions r ega rd ing reli giousbeliefs wo uld be u nlikely to re veal bias in favo r o f one side o r t he other. M oreover , this case is ab out f

alse- light- invasion- of- pr ivacy, no t re ligion. T her e is no evidenc e t hat t he t rial co ur t 's conduct prevented

the selection of an

impa r t ial ju ry. T he r efo r e, we de t er mine t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not abuse i ts discretion when

it restricted voi

r di re wit h re gar d t o r eligiou s mat t er s. H aving determi ned that all o f de fen da nt 's a r gu men t s fa il, w e c o nc lud e t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t did not err when it de nie d d efe nd an t 's mo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial. Fo rt he fo r go ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f La ke Co un t y. Af fi rmed. JOR GENSEN , P.J., an

d Mc LA REN, J ., conc

ur.