No. 1-14-3045 Fifth Division June 30, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

) JOSEPH JACKSON, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellant, ) of Cook County. ) v. ) No. 13 M1 110673 ) MOUNT PISGAH MISSIONARY BAPTIST ) The Honorable CHURCH DEACON BOARD and MOUNT PISGAH ) Leon Wool, MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, ) Judge Presiding. ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Lampkin concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 The instant appeal arises from a dispute between plaintiff Joseph Jackson, a former pastor

with defendant Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church, and defendants over whether

defendants breached the parties’ oral agreement when they terminated plaintiff’s employment

with the church. Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the defendant church and the

defendant board of deacons to be retained as the church’s pastor. As part of the oral

agreement, the parties agreed that plaintiff’s employment would be governed by the church’s

bylaws. Defendants subsequently terminated plaintiff and plaintiff filed a complaint for No. 1-14-3045

breach of contract in the trial court, alleging that defendants breached the parties’ oral

agreement when they terminated him because they did not follow the procedural steps

required by the bylaws for terminating a pastor.

¶2 After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of defendants, concluding that

defendants complied with the bylaws when they terminated plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals the

trial court’s order, arguing that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding certain of

his witnesses and (2) the trial court erred in finding that defendants did not violate the bylaws

when they terminated him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s order.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 I. Complaint

¶5 On February 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a one-count complaint for breach of contract against

defendants; the complaint was amended twice 1 and it is plaintiff’s verified second amended

complaint on which the parties proceeded to trial. The second amended complaint alleges

that plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with the church to be retained as its pastor and to

lead the church organization according to the “Church Constitutional By-Laws.” The

complaint alleges that “[u]nder the terms of the agreement, and for proper and valid

consideration, Plaintiff and Defendants promised to abide by the Church by-laws.”

¶6 The complaint alleges that the board of deacons “attempted to hold a vote of

dissatisfaction to remove Plaintiff from his position as Pastor.” However, the complaint

further alleges that under the bylaws, “there must be a written notice of dissatisfaction from

the Church, a Special Meeting of the Deacon Board called and held with the Pastor presiding,

proper notice to the congregation membership regarding a special meeting to vote on any

1 The record does not contain a first amended complaint, but only contains the initial complaint and plaintiff’s “verified second amended complaint for breach of contract.”

2 No. 1-14-3045

dissatisfaction, and a proper membership vote.” The complaint alleges that defendants

“engaged in none of these procedural steps as required by the By-Laws.”

¶7 According to the complaint, “[a]fter Plaintiff delivered a signed medical letter identifying

his temporary inability to attend certain church meetings, *** Defendants took certain

improper illegal actions to have [plaintiff] removed as pastor of the Church.” The complaint

alleges that defendants moved to have a vote of dissatisfaction, “without proper written

notice to the Plaintiff, without any prior special meeting explaining dissatisfaction, and

without proper notice to the congregation about when, how and why a special vote was to be

taken.” Defendants “purported to have a vote on Saturday, December 15, 2012, during a time

that [plaintiff] was unavailable, to remove [plaintiff] as pastor of the Church, *** and

subsequently discharged Plaintiff and prevented him from performing his duties as pastor.”

¶8 The complaint set forth one count for breach of contract, alleging that until he was

discharged, plaintiff had fully and regularly satisfied his obligations under the oral contract

between the parties. However, “[p]laintiff received no prior notice of Letter of Dissatisfaction

from Defendants, individually or collectively, regarding his leadership or his performance as

pastor of the Church, as required under the Church by-laws and common law.” The

complaint alleges that plaintiff was not informed in advance of any special meeting called by

the board of deacons regarding any dissatisfaction of his leadership, was not informed in

advance of any scheduling of a special meeting to hold a vote regarding any dissatisfaction of

his leadership, and was not in attendance at any meeting where any vote was held to remove

him as pastor of the church. The complaint alleges that defendants’ actions breached their

contractual duty to abide by the church’s bylaws “in order to proceed with any dissatisfaction

or change in leadership” and that defendants’ “failure to perform the obligations under the

3 No. 1-14-3045

By-Laws of the Church to provide due process in terminating Plaintiff is [the] proximate

cause of damages to the Plaintiff[ ] including loss of financial compensation, life and health

insurance benefits and damage to Plaintiff’s reputation.” The complaint alleges that as a

result of defendants’ breach, “[p]laintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $7,500,

in addition to court costs and attorneys’ fees.”

¶9 Attached to the complaint was a copy of the church’s bylaws, effective August 1, 1995.

Part II, section I of the bylaws governs the role of the pastor within the church. Subsection

(A) sets forth the selection of the pastor, providing that “[t]he Pastor of this church shall be

selected upon recommendation of the Pulpit Committee by standing vote of the church

membership at the special meeting called for that purpose. Public notice of that meeting shall

be announced to the membership, from the Pulpit[,] at least two (2) Consecutive Sundays

prior to the meeting. The Pastor will be selected by the majority of the membership present

[a]t that special meeting.” (Emphases in original.)

¶ 10 Subsection (C) sets forth the duties of the pastor and provides, in relevant part:

“The Pastor does not have the authority to dissolve the Official Staff: Deacons

and Trustees. The Church reserves that right with a majority [v]ote of the active

membership. *** He may preside in all meetings of the Church and board, deacons

and/or trustees, weather [sic] for devotion or [b]usiness. He shall promote missions in

the church, call regularly upon [t]he sick and needy membership, and be responsible

for the administering [o]f the church office. In addition, the Pastor shall be ex-official

[sic] on all boards and committees of the church.”

¶ 11 Subsection (D) sets forth the pastor’s term of office and explains the procedure for his

termination. It provides, in relevant part:

4 No. 1-14-3045

“The term of office is indefinite and can last as long as The Pastor and Church can

agree. The Pastor, thus elected, shall serve [u]ntil the relationship is terminated by his

request or the church’s request. The termination of the Pastor may be effected upon:

1. One month’s written notice from the pastor.

2. One month’s written notice from the church.

3. [A]fter written notice of dissatisfaction has been given to the pastor, he

must respond to a special meeting with the Deacon Board within two (2) weeks.

4. Should the Church desire to dismiss the Pastor, the Chairman of the

Deacon Board may call a special meeting of the membership for that [p]urpose.

A. A public notice must be given two (2) consecutive Sundays

[p]rior to the meeting.

B. Termination shall be based on a majority standing vote cast by

[t]he members present at that meeting.

5. In the event of termination, the pastor shall be given four (4) weeks

severance pay based on his current salary.” (Emphases in original.)

¶ 12 Part II, section III of the bylaws governs the role of the deacons within the church, and

provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he board shall consist of a Chairman and other members,

voted in [b]y the church upon recommendation of the pastor.”

¶ 13 Also attached to the complaint was a December 3, 2012, letter from plaintiff’s doctor,

which stated that plaintiff “suffers from Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease” and

recommended “that he abstain[ ] from different church meetings which are likely to

aggravate his clinical condition, for a period of ninety days (3 months).”

5 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 14 Finally, attached to the complaint was a December 17, 2012, letter to plaintiff from

Deacon Isaac Walker on behalf of the board of deacons. The letter stated that “[t]he Mt.

Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church Deacon Board is writing this letter to inform/confirm you

of your termination as Pastor of our Church at [the] Saturday, December 15, 2012 church

meeting. It was decided by the Majority of (53) to (22) votes to vacate the Pulpit.” (Emphases

in original.)

¶ 15 On December 4, 2013, the church filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)), claiming that

civil courts were prohibited from interfering in ecclesiastical controversies involving the

termination of clergy. In response, plaintiff argued that the United States Constitution did not

prohibit court intervention when a church organization failed to follow procedures it had,

itself, enacted. On January 4, 2014, the trial court denied the church’s motion to dismiss

“based on the Ervin v. Lilydale Progressive case [(Ervin v. Lilydale Progressive Missionary

Baptist Church,

(2004))]” and found that the matter was a contractual

issue.

¶ 16 II. Discovery

¶ 17 The parties proceeded to engage in discovery, and we relate here only the discovery that

is relevant to the issues on appeal. In response to plaintiff’s requests to admit, the church

admitted that there was no contract signed relating to plaintiff’s employment, but that the

parties agreed that plaintiff’s employment would be subject to the church’s constitution and

bylaws. The church further admitted that a public notice of a meeting of the membership was

placed in the church bulletin for the worship service on Sunday, December 9, 2012, and that

a meeting of the membership took place on Saturday, December 15, 2012. In response to

6 No. 1-14-3045

defendants’ requests to admit, plaintiff admitted that on Sunday, December 9, 2012, plaintiff

was provided with a “Sunday Morning Mention Sheet” that contained announcements to be

made to the entire church, and one of the announcements listed was a church meeting

scheduled for Saturday, December 15, 2012.

¶ 18 On June 11, 2014, the church served plaintiff with interrogatories, requesting, inter alia,

the names of any witnesses intended to testify at trial. On June 26, 2014, the trial court

ordered that “[a]ll discovery [was] to be completed and closed by July 17, 2014.” On July 17,

2014, the matter was set for trial on September 3 and 4, 2014.

¶ 19 On August 22, 2014, the church filed a motion to bar 11 of plaintiff’s proposed witnesses,

arguing that plaintiff served the church with his witness list on August 21, 2014, when

discovery had closed on July 17, 2014, and trial was set for September 3, 2014. The motion

claimed that at the time discovery closed, plaintiff had identified only one witness, namely,

plaintiff himself, and the church had deposed plaintiff. The motion further claimed that it

would be impossible for the church to take any and all of the depositions on plaintiff’s list of

witnesses in a timely manner, and that it would be prejudiced by permitting plaintiff to use

witnesses without the church having an opportunity to depose them. On August 28, 2014, the

trial court granted the church’s motion to bar plaintiff’s witnesses “for the reasons given in

open court.” 2

¶ 20 On August 29, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the order barring his witnesses,

arguing that the church’s July 15, 2014, answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories did not contain

sufficient information to identify the nature of each witness’ testimony. Thus, on July 31,

2014, plaintiff issued a 201(k) letter to the church asking the church to supplement its

2 The record does not contain a transcript of the August 28, 2014, hearing.

7 No. 1-14-3045

answers to the interrogatories, which plaintiff received on August 11, 2014. According to the

motion, “[p]laintiff promptly consulted with persons believed to have relevant knowledge of

the facts related to the additional subjects on which Defendant witnesses would testify,” all

of whom were current or former members of the church “and had thus been identified in

Plaintiff’s interrogatory response.” 3 Plaintiff supplemented his response to the church’s

interrogatories on August 20, 2014, adding additional witnesses to counteract the church’s

witnesses. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider argued that he could not have known what

witnesses he would need in order to rebut the church’s witnesses until after the church had

adequately provided the information concerning its witnesses and the subjects on which they

would testify, which was not done until August 11, 2014.

¶ 21 III. Trial

¶ 22 Trial commenced on September 3, 2014. The only witnesses to testify were plaintiff, who

testified on his own behalf, and Deacon Isaac Walker, who testified on behalf of the

defense. 4

¶ 23 Plaintiff testified on his own behalf that he began working as the church’s pastor in

November 1995 and worked there until the end of 2012. Plaintiff testified that on or about

December 17, 2012, he received a letter by certified mail from the board of deacons

terminating his employment, which was signed by Isaac Walker. Plaintiff further testified

3 A file-stamped copy of plaintiff’s response to the church’s interrogatories is not contained in the record on appeal. However, an unstamped copy attached to plaintiff’s motion to reconsider indicates that, in response to an interrogatory concerning identification of “all persons who have knowledge of any of the facts alleged in this case,” plaintiff stated that “members of the Mount Pisgah Missionary Baptist Church in attendance at various meetings as stated in the complaint have knowledge related to those meetings and that Members of the Board of Deacons have knowledge of specific conversations or communication with themselves, members of the congregation or Plaintiff regarding incidents as stated in the Complaint.” 4 Defendants attempted to put on a second witness to testify as to the condition of plaintiff’s office after his termination, to show reasons for why he was terminated, but the court sustained the objection to the witness’ testimony on the basis of relevance.

8 No. 1-14-3045

that he did not have a written employment contract with the church but had an oral agreement

that his relationship with the church would be governed by the church’s bylaws.

¶ 24 Plaintiff testified as to his understanding of the requirements for a “letter of

dissatisfaction” under the bylaws, testifying that “[m]y understanding is that the church is to

authorize the letter of dissatisfaction, which should be done in a church meeting. There

would be an offer, motion offered for the letter of dissatisfaction and the church would vote

on it. That’s how the business was handled.” Plaintiff testified that the church would have

“business meetings” twice a year and that public notice was provided for these meetings

“[o]ver the pulpit by the pastor and also in the church bulletin.” The “[o]nly other form” of

notice that would be used for public notice of church meetings would be “if the pastor

designated someone to stand in his stead” and make the announcement from the pulpit.

Plaintiff testified that the pastor was to preside over congregational meetings and further

testified that he was never in attendance at any congregational meeting at which a letter of

dissatisfaction was voted on, nor did he receive any letter of dissatisfaction.

¶ 25 Plaintiff testified that he attended a meeting of the board of deacons in October 2012, but

there was no vote of dissatisfaction at that meeting. Plaintiff admitted that during that

meeting, Deacon Charles Bridgeman attempted to give him an envelope, but plaintiff “did

not receive that envelope” and did not know what was contained inside. Plaintiff then “told

them that I would not receive a sealed envelope, and that if they had issues with me, that was

the reason why the meeting was called and we can discuss it now.” There was no discussion

of any issues at that time.

¶ 26 Plaintiff testified that according to the bylaws, he was ex officio over all boards and

committees, including the board of deacons. As such, he never attended any board of

9 No. 1-14-3045

deacons’ meetings in which a motion of dissatisfaction or an authorization to issue a letter of

dissatisfaction was voted on, nor did he ever receive notice of any meeting where that would

be a topic of discussion.

¶ 27 Plaintiff testified that a meeting of the congregation “could be called by the pastor, or his

designee, or in cases where the church had agreed to dismiss the pastor, the chairman of the

deacon board was allowed to call a meeting for that purpose.” Plaintiff did not call a meeting

for December 15, 2012. Plaintiff testified that he preached on December 2, 2012, and was

present for the entire church service. He did not make any announcement of a December 15

congregational meeting, nor did anyone else make an announcement of such a meeting in his

presence during the worship service. Plaintiff further testified that there was no notice of a

meeting placed in the December 2 church bulletin. However, after the December 2 service,

plaintiff became aware that there was to be a December 15 congregational meeting when one

of the church members called plaintiff and asked him whether he was aware that there was to

be a meeting concerning whether to retain plaintiff as the church’s pastor.

¶ 28 The following Sunday, December 9, plaintiff “gave notice to the church that I heard of a

meeting being called by Deacon Isaac Walker, and that he was not authorized to call such a

meeting. And I presented a letter from my doctor to the church asking them to hear the

judgment of my doctor, advice of my doctor *** that I should not be in attendance of any

such church meetings, because of my elevated blood pressure and clinical condition.”

Plaintiff testified that the December 9 church bulletin contained an announcement of the

December 15 meeting, but did not contain a statement as to the meeting’s subject matter.

10 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 29 Plaintiff testified that he did not attend the December 15 meeting because he “advised the

church that the meeting was illegally called” and because of his doctor’s advice. He learned

what had happened at the meeting “[t]hrough the letter that was sent to me.”

¶ 30 On cross-examination, plaintiff testified that he visited his doctor on December 3, 2012,

after learning of the scheduled December 15 meeting, and admitted that after visiting the

doctor, he remained able to perform all of the functions of his position other than attending

stressful meetings. Plaintiff denied that the reason that the meetings were stressful was

because some members wanted him to resign, but admitted that he had testified in his

deposition that the meetings were stressful due to personal attacks, which included members

telling him he needed to resign. Plaintiff further admitted that he “went to the doctor on

December 3, 2012 to specifically ask the doctor to not have [him] attend stressful meetings.”

¶ 31 Plaintiff also admitted on cross-examination that he presided over a congregational

meeting on October 20, 2012, in which the members voted to change the bylaws to permit an

anonymous vote concerning whether to retain the pastor. However, plaintiff testified that

they were “[n]ot necessarily” targeting him specifically, because “[i]t was to change the

bylaws so that the vote for the pastor would be by secret ballot. It doesn’t matter if it was me

or anyone else.”

¶ 32 Plaintiff further testified on cross-examination as to the sealed envelope he refused to

accept from the deacon on October 29, 2012, testifying that a letter of dissatisfaction could

not have been inside the envelope “[b]ecause the church did not authorize it. I was at the

church.” When asked who represented the church, plaintiff testified that “[t]he pastor

represents the church.” However, plaintiff admitted that he was unable to sign contracts or

write checks on the church’s business account. Plaintiff further admitted that he did not meet

11 No. 1-14-3045

with the board of deacons at any time during the two weeks following the October 29, 2012,

meeting.

¶ 33 Plaintiff testified that he was given “mention sheets” by the deacon in attendance that

contained announcements to be made by the pastor over the pulpit. When he was given a

mention sheet, plaintiff would make the announcements listed on the sheets “[i]f I choose

to”; plaintiff explained that “I have the authority to decide what is to be announced,” with

that authority based on “me being the overseer of the church.” Plaintiff was provided an

exhibit purporting to be a mention sheet dated December 2, 2012, but testified that he did not

recall receiving that document and “[t]his document could have been printed after that.”

Plaintiff was provided another exhibit purporting to be a mention sheet dated December 9,

2012, but did not recall receiving that document. However, plaintiff had earlier admitted to

receiving the December 9, 2012, mention sheet in his responses to the church’s requests to

admit.

¶ 34 Plaintiff testified that on December 9, 2012, he asked the members of the church not to

attend the meeting scheduled for December 15.

¶ 35 On redirect examination, plaintiff testified that other than when he was ill and designated

a substitute, plaintiff presided over all congregational meetings except for the December 15,

2012, meeting. Plaintiff also testified that he presided over all the board of deacons meetings

when he was present.

¶ 36 Following plaintiff’s testimony, plaintiff rested and defendants made a motion for a

directed finding, which the trial court denied. Deacon Isaac Walker then testified for the

defense that he was the chairman of the board of deacons, which was “the highest ranking

board” at the church. Walker testified that the board of deacons was responsible for hiring

12 No. 1-14-3045

and firing employees and that the board had selected plaintiff to be the pastor of the church

and presented him to the body of church members.

¶ 37 When asked about the October 20, 2012, church meeting in which the church members

voted to amend the bylaws governing the procedure for terminating a pastor, Walker testified

that the amendment permitted the vote to be by secret ballot rather than through a standing-

vote method in which members were required to stand up to register their votes. Walker

testified that this amendment was due to concerns about “intimidation,” noting that people

had been treated differently by plaintiff in the past based on whether plaintiff approved of the

way they voted. According to Walker, “98 percent favored the secret ballot.”

¶ 38 Walker testified that there was a meeting of the board of deacons on October 29, 2012,

and that he prepared a letter containing his signature that was intended to be presented at that

meeting; Walker characterized the letter as a letter of dissatisfaction. Prior to preparing the

letter, he had discussed its contents with the other deacons, and they drafted the letter

together at a meeting the Sunday before October 29, which included complaints and concerns

that the deacons had received from church members involving the church’s growth, declining

membership, wasteful spending, plaintiff’s Christian character, and plaintiff’s lack of respect

for members. A majority of deacons were present at the meeting, but plaintiff was neither

notified about the meeting nor in attendance; Walker testified that the board of deacons

“didn’t consider [it] necessary to notify him” of the meeting because they did not consider it

a board meeting. When asked whether the letter was written on his behalf or on behalf of the

board of deacons and the church, Walker responded that “[b]y all means it was first of all the

church and the deacon board” because “the church came to us.” Walker explained that the

board of deacons had noticed the problems itself, but after the members of the congregation

13 No. 1-14-3045

had raised the issue with the board as well, “we had to deal with it.” On cross-examination,

Walker testified that there was no vote of the congregation to send a letter of dissatisfaction

to plaintiff, but “[t]he bylaws didn’t require that.”

¶ 39 Walker testified that plaintiff was present at the October 29, 2012, board of deacons

meeting and, in fact, presided over the meeting. At the end of the meeting, Walker asked

Deacon Charles Bridgeman to give the letter to plaintiff, which Bridgeman attempted to do.

Walker testified that, initially, plaintiff would not accept the letter and Bridgeman laid the

letter on a table. Eventually, plaintiff picked up the letter and began waving it around, asking

who was responsible, and the board repeated to plaintiff that the letter was from the board of

deacons. After plaintiff’s questions, Walker “spoke as chairman” to inform plaintiff that “you

have two weeks to get back to us with this—with an answer on this Letter of

Dissatisfaction.” Walker testified that the board of deacons “wanted to try to resolve this

thing,” but plaintiff did not respond during the two weeks following the October 29 meeting;

Walker denied that plaintiff had offered to discuss any concerns the deacons had with him “at

that very moment” the letter was offered to him, testifying that “he did not offer to discuss

anything.” Walker testified that at the time they presented the letter to plaintiff, “the pastor

and church could no longer agree.”

¶ 40 Walker testified that he also served as the superintendent of the church’s Sunday school

and that “most of the church announcements that go to the regular church body also come

through the Sunday school,” including announcements of meetings, sick members of the

congregation, and funerals. Walker testified that church meetings, group meetings, and other

meetings would be announced at the Sunday school, including announcements of board of

deacons meetings. Walker explained that some of the people who attended Sunday school

14 No. 1-14-3045

might not attend the morning church service, “so we want to make sure they get the

announcements.”

¶ 41 Walker testified that on Sunday, December 2, 2012, he made an announcement at the end

of Sunday school in which he announced that there would be a church meeting on December

15 for “the sole purpose of voting Reverend Jackson in or out,” and emphasized that it was a

“[v]ery, very important meeting.” Walker testified that there were between 65 and 80

members present at Sunday school that day, which was approximately the same number as

attended the church service that morning. Walker was also present at the church service that

morning, and plaintiff read from the mention sheet but did not read the announcement

concerning the church meeting, despite the fact that the meeting was listed on the mention

sheet. Walker testified that the notice was not included in the December 2 church bulletin

because the board of deacons did not inform the church secretary of the announcement in

time for it to be printed in the bulletin.

¶ 42 Walker testified that he announced the meeting again at the end of Sunday school the

following Sunday, December 9, and that there were again between 65 and 80 church

members attending Sunday school. The meeting was also included in that day’s church

bulletin. Walker was also present at the church service that morning, and there were “about

the same or less” church members at the service as had been at Sunday school. While making

announcements over the pulpit, plaintiff “objected to the meeting, telling the people not to

come; there would be no meeting on December 15.” Walker continued that, “[i]n fact, he said

if they came to the meeting, that [there] would be consequences. They would be sorry if they

came to the meeting. He was daring them to come to the meeting.”

15 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 43 Walker testified that there was a meeting on December 15, 2012, which he chaired “[a]s

chairman of the board,” and further testified that “the sole purpose of that meeting was to

take a vote on whether we [were] going to retain Pastor Jackson as pastor or not.” The

outcome of the vote was “53 to 22, something on that order, 3 to 1, against Reverend Jackson

as pastor.”

¶ 44 Walker testified that he considered the 33 or 34 days between the October 29 letter of

dissatisfaction and the first notice of the December 15 meeting to satisfy the bylaws’ “one

month written notice” requirement for terminating a pastor. Walker further testified that he

did not believe that notice of the December 15 meeting was required to be made over the

pulpit, but only needed to be a “public announcement.”

¶ 45 At the close of the bench trial on September 4, 2014, the trial court found in favor of

defendants, concluding:

“After reviewing the evidence presented in these last couple days, I find that the

church complied with the bylaws in termination which is the key threshold of this

case.

It’s clear that [sic] to the court that the pastor and the church could no longer

agree. I find testimony of the witness Deacon Walker to be credible.

I find that the people of the church relayed their feelings to the deacons, and I find

that the church sent a Letter of Dissatisfaction and that they complied with the special

meetings that were required.

It is therefore the opinion of the court there will be a finding for the defendant and

against the plaintiff.”

16 No. 1-14-3045

The trial court entered a written order finding in favor of the church and against plaintiff on

the same day. Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal, and this appeal follows. Defendants

did not file a brief on appeal, so we take the instant appeal for consideration on the record

and plaintiff’s brief only.

¶ 46 ANALYSIS

¶ 47 On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding certain of

his witnesses and erred in concluding that defendants did not violate the bylaws when they

terminated him. We consider each argument in turn.

¶ 48 I. Jurisdiction

¶ 49 As an initial matter, as an appellate court, we are required to consider our jurisdiction,

even if the parties do not raise the issue. A.M. Realty Western L.L.C. v. MSMC Realty, L.L.C.,

. In the case at bar, we must ask whether or not the doctrine

of ecclesiastical abstention prohibits us from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute. Before

trial, the church filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that secular courts cannot intervene in

controversies involving the selection or removal of clergy. The trial court denied the church’s

motion. Although defendants did not raise this issue on appeal, we address it to confirm our

jurisdiction.

¶ 50 The doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention provides that, pursuant to the guarantee of free

exercise of religion included in the first amendment to the United States Constitution, “civil

courts may not determine the correctness of interpretations of canonical text or some

decisions relating to government of the religious polity; rather, courts must accept as given

whatever the religious entity decides.” Duncan v. Peterson,

(2010)

(citing Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada v.

17 No. 1-14-3045

Milivojevich,

(1976)). However, where a church dispute does not raise

issues of church doctrine, the first amendment does not require deference to decisions of

religious entities. St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church v. Tanios,

(1991). Instead, the court may use the “neutral principles of law” approach, in which the

court examines pertinent church charters, constitutions and bylaws, deeds, State statutes, and

other evidence to resolve the matter the same way it would a secular dispute. Tanios,

. In short, whether or not a civil court may exercise jurisdiction over a

dispute involving a religious organization depends on whether resolution of the claims is

possible without inquiry into religious principles and doctrines. Abrams v. Watchtower Bible

& Tract Society of New York, Inc.,

(1999).

¶ 51 A civil court may not exercise jurisdiction over an employment dispute between a church

and a church member if the parties are bound by the church’s law, which provides its own

procedures for entering employment contracts, and the plaintiff alleges a violation of only

civil law. Gabriel v. Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc.,

, 459-

60 (1994). For instance, in Gabriel, a teacher sued her church for breach of contract after the

church withdrew its offer to employ her as a parochial school kindergarten teacher. Gabriel,

. The teacher alleged that the parties had entered into a contract, which

had become binding under civil contract law after the church had made her an offer and she

had accepted the offer by signing it. Gabriel,

. However, the plaintiff

was a commissioned minister of religion under the structure of the church, and thus she was

not a secular employee. Gabriel,

. The church’s constitution had its

own procedures for appointing ministerial employees, and these procedures required that the

church both extend an offer and perform an “installment,” the latter of which the church

18 No. 1-14-3045

alleged it never performed before revoking its offer to employ the plaintiff. Gabriel,

. The appellate court held that it did not have jurisdiction over the complaint

because the church’s process for hiring teachers was an ecclesiastical matter. Gabriel,

.

¶ 52 Conversely, where a complaint alleges that a church has violated its own bylaws, a civil

court may exercise jurisdiction to decide whether the church has violated its bylaws. Ervin v.

Lilydale Progressive Missionary Baptist Church,

(2004). In Ervin, a

pastor was discharged without a congregation vote, which was required before termination

under the church’s bylaws. Erwin,

. The church conceded that it had

violated its bylaws, but challenged jurisdiction. Erwin,

. The appellate

court held that, while churches have the autonomy to select their clergy in compliance with

the church’s governing law, “the first and fourteenth amendments do not prohibit court

intervention when the church fails to follow the procedures it has, itself, enacted.” Erwin,

.

¶ 53 In the case at bar, we find that civil jurisdiction is proper. Gabriel is distinguishable

because the plaintiff in that matter was contending that civil law, instead of church law,

should apply, but the appellate court in Gabriel found that the dispute was an ecclesiastical

matter because the parties were both subject to the church’s law regarding whether to employ

the plaintiff. In the case at bar, however, the parties agree on what law applies, i.e.,

defendants’ bylaws, and the dispute is over whether or not defendants violated those bylaws.

Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that Ervin is controlling. Like the dispute in Ervin,

plaintiff asserts that the church violated its own bylaws. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to

determine whether or not defendants followed the proper procedure for terminating plaintiff.

19 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 54 Furthermore, deciding whether or not defendants violated the bylaws in the present case

will not require inquiry into a religious doctrine, and may be resolved using neutral principles

of civil law. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendants breached the parties’ oral agreement

by failing to comply with the bylaws. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to

(1) provide a written notice of dissatisfaction; (2) hold a special meeting; (3) provide notice

of a vote to the members; and (4) have a proper membership vote. To resolve this dispute, we

need only look to the plain text of the church’s bylaws and the relevant facts to determine

whether or not defendants breached their oral agreement by failing to comply with its

bylaws. Since we need not inquire into any religious doctrines, and can address this issue

employing neutral principles of civil law, we have jurisdiction to decide whether defendants

breached their oral agreement with plaintiff.

¶ 55 II. Motion to Bar Witnesses

¶ 56 Turning to the merits of plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, plaintiff first argues that the trial

court erred in granting the church’s motion to bar plaintiff’s witnesses. In the case at bar, on

August 28, 2014, the trial court granted the church’s motion to bar witnesses for failure to

comply with supreme court rules and rules of civil procedure “for the reasons given in open

court.” Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(d) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007), “[w]ithin 28 days after

service of the interrogatories upon the party to whom they are directed, the party shall serve a

sworn answer or an objection to each interrogatory.” Furthermore, “[u]pon written

interrogatory, a party must furnish the identities and addresses of witnesses who will testify

at trial and must provide” the subject on which the witness will testify. Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)

(eff. Jan. 1, 2007). “The Rule 213 disclosure requirements are mandatory and subject to strict

compliance by the parties.” Sullivan v. Edward Hospital,

(2004).

20 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 57 In the case at bar, on June 11, 2014, the church served plaintiff with interrogatories,

requesting, inter alia, the names of any witnesses intended to testify at trial. On June 26,

2014, the trial court ordered that discovery would close on July 17, 2014. According to the

church’s motion to bar plaintiff’s witnesses, plaintiff did not serve the church with his

witness list until August 21, 2014, after discovery had closed and less than two weeks before

trial. At the time that discovery had closed, plaintiff had only identified one witness, namely,

plaintiff himself, and the church had deposed plaintiff. Thus, the witness list plaintiff served

the church on August 21 was untimely and did not comply with the terms of Rule 213.

¶ 58 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002) authorizes the trial court to impose

a sanction, including barring a witness from testifying, upon any party who unreasonably

refuses to comply with any provisions of the supreme court’s discovery rules or any order

entered pursuant to said rules. Here, as noted, the trial court granted the church’s motion to

bar witnesses for failure to comply with supreme court rules and rules of civil procedure “for

the reasons given in open court.” We can find no error in this decision.

¶ 59 In addition to authorizing sanctions, Rule 219(c) provides that “where a sanction is

imposed under this paragraph (c), the judge shall set forth with specificity the reasons and

basis of any sanction so imposed either in the judgment order itself or in a separate written

order.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(c) (eff. July 1, 2002). Plaintiff first argues that the trial court

“unequivocally violated” Rule 219(c) by “providing no explanation” in its written order. We

do not find this argument persuasive.

¶ 60 In the case at bar, the trial court barred certain plaintiff’s witnesses “for the reasons given

in open court.” However, the record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings or

bystander’s report from the court date at which the trial court made its ruling. Plaintiff, as the

21 No. 1-14-3045

appellant, bears the burden of providing a sufficiently complete record to support his claim of

error, and in the absence of such a record on appeal, it will be presumed that the order

entered by the trial court was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis.

Foutch v. O’Bryant,

(1984). Moreover, any doubt arising from the

incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant. Foutch,

.

Since we do not have the transcript of the hearing, we must presume that the trial court set

forth a sufficient factual basis for barring plaintiff’s witnesses, a factual basis which was then

expressly incorporated into the written order barring the witnesses.

¶ 61 Furthermore, the trial court’s failure to set forth the reasons for a sanction is not per se

reversible error, “particularly where *** the trial court’s order grants a written motion that

spells out the reasons for the dismissal and those reasons are supported by the record.”

Chabowski v. Vacation Village Ass’n,

(1997); see also Illinois

Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,

(2009) (“This court has relaxed th[e] requirement [that the trial court set forth the reasons for

a sanction] in cases where the sanction was entered pursuant to a written motion, as this court

assumed that the reasons for the sanction were those set out in the motion.”); Glover v.

Barbosa,

(2003) (“[A] court’s failure to set out the grounds for

sanctions is not per se reversible error. *** We can assume that the reasons for the ***

sanction are those set out in [the written] motion, absent contrary evidence of record.”). Here,

since the trial court barred plaintiff’s witnesses pursuant to defendants’ written motion and

the trial court’s decision to bar plaintiff’s witnesses is supported by the record, the trial

court’s written order offers no basis for reversal.

22 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 62 A trial court’s decision to impose a sanction under Rule 219(c) will not be reversed

absent a clear abuse of discretion. Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp.,

(1998). A trial court abuses its discretion where no reasonable person would take the

view adopted by the court. Lake Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold,

. In

determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sanction, the

reviewing court must look to the same factors that the trial court was required to consider in

deciding an appropriate sanction. Boatmen’s National Bank of Belleville v. Martin,

(1993). The factors the trial court must consider in determining whether

excluding a witness is an appropriate sanction are: “(1) surprise to the adverse party; (2) the

prejudicial effect of the witness’ testimony; (3) the nature of the witness’ testimony; (4) the

diligence of the adverse party; (5) whether objection to the witness’ testimony was timely;

and (6) the good faith of the party calling the witness.” Martin,

. No single

factor is determinative. After examining these factors, we cannot find that the trial court

abused its discretion in barring plaintiff’s witnesses.

¶ 63 First, defendants were clearly surprised by plaintiff supplementing his witness list with

10 additional witnesses. Rule 213(f) provides, in pertinent part, that “[u]pon written

interrogatory, a party must furnish the identities and addresses of witnesses who will testify

at trial.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). “[A] party should be allowed to rely on an

opposing party’s answer to Rule 213(f) interrogatories and expect that only those witnesses

disclosed pursuant to Rule 213(f) will in fact be called to testify at trial ***.” American

Service Insurance Co. v. Olszewski,

(2001); see also Copeland v.

Stebco Products Corp.,

(2000) (“Rule 213 is designed to give those

involved in the trial process a degree of certainty and predictability that furthers the

23 No. 1-14-3045

administration of justice and eliminates trial by ‘ambush.’ ”). “Further, Supreme Court Rule

213(i) imposes on each party a continuing duty to inform the opponent of new or additional

information whenever such information becomes known to the party.” Sullivan,

. In the case at bar, on July 15, 2014, plaintiff served defendants with his answers to

defendants’ interrogatories, identifying plaintiff as the only witness intended to testify at trial.

While preparing for trial, defendants relied on plaintiff’s answers and expected that only

plaintiff would be called to testify at trial. It was not until August 20, 2014, 34 days after the

close of discovery and two weeks before trial, that plaintiff served defendants with his

supplemental response to defendants’ interrogatory No. 3, identifying 10 additional

witnesses. Allowing plaintiff’s 10 additional witnesses to testify at trial with only two weeks’

notice to defendants would result in exactly the type of ambush that Rule 213(f) is designed

to prevent.

¶ 64 Plaintiff argues that allowing his witnesses to testify would have resulted in no surprise to

defendants because defendants should have anticipated that plaintiff would supplement his

witness list in response to defendants’ supplemental answers to interrogatories, which

provided greater detail regarding the expected testimony of defendants’ witnesses. However,

plaintiff fails to explain why the details contained in defendants’ supplemental answers

should have put defendants on notice that plaintiff would subsequently supplement his

witness list. Since plaintiff provides no basis for his argument beyond the allegation itself, we

cannot find the argument persuasive.

¶ 65 With respect to the second factor, plaintiff argues that allowing his additional witnesses

to testify would have had no prejudicial effect on defendants because both parties provided

their original witness lists two days before the close of discovery, so even if plaintiff had

24 No. 1-14-3045

included his 10 additional witnesses in his original witness list, defendants would not have

had an opportunity to depose the witnesses. We do not find this argument persuasive.

“Relevant considerations in assessing prejudice on appeal are the strength of the undisclosed

evidence, the likelihood that prior notice could have helped the defense discredit the

evidence, the feasibility of continuance rather than a more drastic sanction, and the

willfulness of the plaintiff in failing to disclose the witness.” Sobczak v. Flaska,

(1998). In the case at bar, plaintiff claims that his additional witnesses would

have been able to provide testimony rebutting Walker’s testimony that at the end of Sunday

school on December 2, 2012, and December 9, 2012, Walker announced the December 15,

2012, church meeting for the purpose of voting on plaintiff’s termination. As plaintiff was

not present for Walker’s alleged announcements and could not rebut Walker’s testimony

himself, the rebuttal testimony of plaintiff’s additional witnesses could have been very strong

evidence against defendants. Permitting those witnesses to testify without giving defendants

an opportunity to depose them or otherwise prepare to cross-examine them would have been

prejudicial to defendants and this factor weighs in favor of barring the witnesses’ testimony.

¶ 66 With respect to the third factor, plaintiff argues that his witnesses should not have been

barred from testifying due to the nature of their testimony. Plaintiff claims that his witnesses

would have been able to provide testimony illuminating the customs and practices of the

church relevant to plaintiff’s termination, including the content and circulation of church

bulletins, the content of mention sheets, and the method of operations of deacon meetings

and other church meetings. However, this is all information that plaintiff would have known

from the inception of the lawsuit he would need to prove, as he had the burden of proving

25 No. 1-14-3045

that defendants failed to comply with the bylaws. Thus, this factor does not weigh in

plaintiff’s favor.

¶ 67 Finally, plaintiff claims that he exercised good faith prior to supplementing his witness

list because he sent defendant a letter pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(k) (eff.

Jan. 1, 2013) when defendants’ answers to certain interrogatories did not provide adequate

information pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f) (eff. Jan. 1, 2007). Plaintiff also

claims that when defendants served plaintiff with their supplemental answers to

interrogatories, plaintiff timely supplemented his witness list. However, plaintiff fails to

acknowledge that defendants’ discovery responses provided just as much information as

plaintiff’s initial discovery responses, so an argument that there was insufficient information

is disingenuous; we find even plaintiff’s supplement to his witness list to be inadequate.

Furthermore, even if this factor weighed in favor of plaintiff, none of the other factors do.

¶ 68 Although plaintiff does not discuss the diligence of the adverse party or whether

objection to the witnesses’ testimony was timely, we find that these factors also weigh in

favor of barring plaintiff’s witnesses. We find that defendants were diligent because the

church timely served plaintiff with its interrogatories, requesting the identities of persons

having knowledge of any of the facts alleged in the case. See Curran Contracting Co. v.

Woodland Hills Development Co.,

(1992) (holding that the defendants

were diligent where they requested the identities of persons having knowledge of the

allegations in the complaint). We also find that defendants’ objection to the witnesses’

testimony was timely, as the church filed its motion to bar plaintiff’s witnesses two days after

being served with plaintiff’s supplemental witness list. Thus, we find that surprise to

defendants, the prejudicial effect of the witnesses’ testimony, the nature of the witnesses’

26 No. 1-14-3045

testimony, defendants’ diligence, and defendants’ timely objection to the witnesses’

testimony all weigh in favor of barring plaintiff’s witnesses. Accordingly, we find that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted defendants’ motion to bar plaintiff’s

witnesses.

¶ 69 III. Compliance With Bylaws

¶ 70 Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in finding that defendants had complied with

the church’s bylaws in terminating plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff contends that the

question of compliance with the church’s bylaws is a question of contract interpretation,

which should be reviewed de novo. Plaintiff is correct that our review from a trial court’s

interpretation of a contract as a matter of law is de novo. Village of Palatine v. Palatine

Associates, LLC,

(quoting Avery v. State Farm Mutual

Automobile Insurance Co.,

(2005)). De novo consideration means we

perform the same analysis that a trial judge would perform. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP,

(2011). Thus, if the question at hand was solely one of contract

interpretation, the standard of review would be de novo. However, the question of

compliance with the bylaws requires this court to review the trial court’s findings in regards

to the conduct of defendants. Review of defendants’ conduct is a question of fact, not

contract interpretation, and a trial court’s finding of fact and credibility are accorded great

deference. Eychaner v. Gross,

(2002) (quoting Zaderaka v. Illinois

Human Rights Comm’n,

(1989)). Thus, the trial court’s holding will not

be reversed unless it is found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. Eychaner

(citing In re Estate of Zukerman,

(1991)).

27 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 71 Furthermore, a bench trial, such as the one that occurred in the case at bar, requires the

court to weigh the evidence and make findings of fact and where the findings of fact depends

on the credibility of witnesses, the reviewing court will defer to the trial court’s holding

unless they are against the manifest of the weight of evidence. Eychaner,

(citing Chicago Investment Corp v. Dolins,

(1985)). A holding is

considered to be against the manifest weight of the evidence “only when an opposite

conclusion is apparent or when the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based

on the evidence.” Eychaner,

(citing Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R.,

(1996)).

¶ 72 In the case at bar, part II, section I, subsection (D) of the church’s bylaws is labeled “term

of office” and states that once a pastor is elected, he “serves until the position is terminated

by his request or the church’s request.” Plaintiff argues that in order for defendants to have

been compliant with the church’s bylaws in terminating him, they were required to satisfy

parts (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (D). Plaintiff additionally argues that defendants were not

compliant with the church’s bylaws because they failed to follow proper procedure in terms

of calling the meetings, delivering the letter of dissatisfaction, or giving proper notice of

termination. Although it is unclear whether defendants are required to satisfy each part of

subsection (D) in order to be compliant, we agree with the trial court that even if they were,

defendants completed all applicable portions of subsection (D) and were thus compliant with

the church’s bylaws in terminating plaintiff’s employment. 5

5 Part (1) of subsection (D) states that termination can occur with a “one month’s written notice from the pastor.” Thus, the pastor has the option to terminate his employment by himself. However, since plaintiff did not seek to terminate his employment, part (1) is inapplicable and would not be a required component for defendants to be compliant with the church’s bylaws.

28 No. 1-14-3045

¶ 73 First, part (2) of subsection (D) states that the pastor may be terminated by a “one

month’s written notice from the church.” In the case at bar, Walker testified that the board of

deacons presented plaintiff with a letter of dissatisfaction on October 29 and testified that he

believed part (2)’s one-month requirement was satisfied by the 33 to 34 days between the

October 29 letter of dissatisfaction and the December 15 meeting. On appeal, plaintiff does

not dispute that the letter of dissatisfaction can serve as the “written notice” required by part

(2) and, in fact, describes the letter of dissatisfaction as “initiat[ing] his termination process.”

Accordingly, taking the letter of dissatisfaction as “written notice,” we cannot find that the

trial court erred in finding that defendants complied with part (2) by giving plaintiff one

month’s notice from the church of his termination.

¶ 74 Second, part (3) of subsection (D) states that a pastor can be terminated with a “notice of

dissatisfaction.” Once the written notice of dissatisfaction has been given to the pastor “he

must respond to a special meeting with the Deacon Board within two weeks.” Walker

testified that on October 29, 2012, the board of deacons held a meeting where they gave

plaintiff the notice of dissatisfaction. At trial, plaintiff admitted that he refused to accept a

sealed envelope that was given to him at that meeting and Walker testified that the envelope

contained the letter of dissatisfaction. Impeding the board of deacons’ attempt to present the

letter by refusing service does not permit plaintiff to then claim that defendants failed to

comply with part (3). See Barrows v. Maco, Inc.,

(1981) (quoting

Ehard v. Pistakee Builders, Inc.,

(1969)) (noting that a party to a

contract may not complain of the nonperformance of the other party where that performance

is prevented by one’s own actions). Additionally, plaintiff claims that the notice of

dissatisfaction was improper because he was not provided notice of the board of deacons

29 No. 1-14-3045

meeting during which the letter was drafted, even though the church’s bylaws provided that

plaintiff was to be an ex officio member of all boards and committees. Part (3), however,

does not require the board of deacons to have a vote of dissatisfaction, nor does it require a

vote on issuing a letter of dissatisfaction. Part (3) is silent as to any action required to occur

prior to the issuance of a notice of dissatisfaction, but only requires that the pastor must

respond to a special meeting after receiving one. Here, plaintiff does not dispute that he did

not attend a special meeting within two weeks of him being presented with the letter. Thus,

we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that defendants acted in compliance with

subsection (D), part (3) when they attempted to deliver the notice of dissatisfaction to

plaintiff but plaintiff refused to accept the notice.

¶ 75 Finally, part (4) of subsection (D) provides that if the church wants to dismiss the pastor,

“the chairman of the board of deacons may call a special meeting of the membership” to

terminate the pastor. In the case at bar, plaintiff argues that defendants were not in

compliance with part (4) because of improper notice to the congregation. The bylaws provide

that there must be “public notice *** given two (2) consecutive Sundays [p]rior to the

meeting.” A membership meeting was called by the board of deacons to discuss the

termination of plaintiff and was scheduled to take place on December 15, 2012. Walker

testified that during announcements at the end of Sunday school on December 2, 2012, he

explicitly announced that there was a meeting on December 15 that had the sole purpose of

voting on whether or not to retain plaintiff as pastor. Additionally, Walker testified that an

announcement for the December 15 meeting was placed in the mention sheet for December

2, 2012, but that plaintiff did not make the announcement during the service. Next, Walker

testified that notice of the meeting was placed in the church bulletin for the worship service

30 No. 1-14-3045

on December 9, 2012, the Sunday prior to the December 15, 2012, meeting. Plaintiff was

also given a mention sheet containing announcements to be made to the entire church, which

included an announcement for the church meeting scheduled for December 15, 2012.

Plaintiff admitted that he ordered the congregation not to attend the meeting. Thus, there was

notice of the December 15 meeting two consecutive Sundays prior to the meeting.

¶ 76 Plaintiff argues that the December 2 notice was ineffective because the notice was not

given from the pulpit. We do not find this argument persuasive. The bylaws do not require

that the public notice be given from the pulpit. Unlike the provision for selecting a pastor

which requires “[p]ublic notice *** from the pulpit,” the procedure for terminating a pastor

does not contain such a requirement. Furthermore, Walker testified that the December 15

meeting was listed in the December 2 mention sheet, but plaintiff did not make the

announcement to the congregation at the worship service that day. Again, plaintiff cannot

impede defendants’ attempts and then claim no compliance. See Barrows,

. Thus, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that defendants acted in

compliance with part (4) by properly announcing the special meeting two consecutive

Sundays prior to the December 15, 2012 meeting. Accordingly, even if defendants were

required to complete every applicable part of subsection (D) in order to terminate plaintiff’s

employment, we agree with the trial court that their actions still satisfied the requirements of

subsection (D) of the church’s bylaws.

¶ 77 CONCLUSION

¶ 78 For the reasons set forth above, the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendants is

affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring plaintiff’s witnesses from

testifying at trial and the trial court’s conclusion that defendants complied with the church’s

31 No. 1-14-3045

bylaws in terminating plaintiff’s employment was not against the manifest weight of the

evidence.

¶ 79 Affirmed.

32