The Helen Frankenthaler Foundation has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against it by the artist’s nephew, Frederick Iseman, along with a bevy of documents purporting to show that he is on a “harassment campaign” after being removed from the organization’s board.

Iseman filed an amended complaint to his lawsuit in early February against members of his family whom he accused of mismanaging the legacy of the late artist. In it, he expounded on allegations that his cousin Clifford Ross used the foundation as a “pay-to-play” scheme to promote his own art. He also claimed he was forced out after alleging the family intended to liquidate the foundation by 2030.

“The Helen Frankenthaler Foundation and its directors have filed motions to end the baseless lawsuit by former director Frederick Iseman, which he launched after not being re-elected to the Board due to his own unprofessional and disruptive behavior,” the board of the foundation said in an emailed statement.

Instead, the foundation’s board accused Iseman of using the lawsuit as a platform “to harass the foundation’s partners in the art world, attack its directors, and try to hinder the foundation’s ability to conduct its business and advance its mission.”

On top of the motion to dismiss, the foundation filed another to establish “reasonable” restrictions on Iseman’s fact-finding investigation as part of the legal process. It was not immediately known what restrictions on Iseman’s legal investigation the foundation is seeking.

Lloyd DeWitt, a former employee at the Art Gallery of Ontario, said in an affidavit that a woman called him on behalf of Iseman and asked questions about Elizabeth Smith, former executive director of curatorial affairs at the gallery. Smith is now the executive director of the foundation and, though not a party to the lawsuit personally, had been criticized in Iseman’s complaint.

“It was my impression that these questions were specifically designed to elicit disparaging information about Ms. Smith,” DeWitt said.

With the motions, lawyers for the Frankenthaler Foundation filed around 54 documents with the New York Supreme Court including email evidence, board minutes and affidavits from galleries contacted by Iseman amid his legal campaign, as well as a copy of the late artist’s will.

Frankenthaler’s stepdaughter Lise Motherwell, one of the defendants in the case, personally filed an affidavit affirming evidence provided to the court. Some evidence has been redacted by the foundation, but the defendants largely argue that Iseman was a board member when much of the alleged self-dealing by other directors allegedly took place.

“Iseman’s attempt to weaponize the Directors’ philanthropic efforts in a bad faith effort to manufacture claims that they have engaged in “self-dealing” underscores the utter frivolity of this action,” the defendants said in court documents.

Much of the drama surrounds a May 19, 2023, board meeting in which Iseman was iced out. Iseman attended the video conference and relayed he said he was “surprised and saddened” to learn that his directorship would be terminated in an email from Motherwell, Ross, and board member Michael Hecht. He said he would refuse to resign and would have to be voted off the board.

“While our vote does not require a reason, I can share with you that your actions, behavior, and communications for some time have been counterproductive and we believe it is in the best interests of the Foundation that you not continue to serve on the Board,” the email reads.

Motherwell then called on a vote for the reelection of directors of the board, naming Hecht, Ross, and then herself and each were “unanimously” voted on by other directors. Iseman then nominated himself for reelection, but the move was not seconded.

Now, the defendants argue that Iseman does not have standing to challenge the decision of the other board members not to re-elect him. The defendants argue that when a foundation conducts a “proper election” then the results cannot be litigated under New York law. “Iseman was in no way ‘removed’ from the board; he failed to secure the votes for his reelection by his fellow directors,” the motion reads.

“Angered and embarrassed that he lost the confidence of the directors, Iseman filed this action in a fit of spite, seeking to tar the directors’ reputations by falsely alleging that they ‘improperly removed’ him and engaged in ‘unlawful related party transactions’ over the last ten years,” the defendants said. “Even though, Iseman admits he did not oppose any of these transactions when he was a director.”

And because Iseman is no longer a director, Iseman’s cousins allege that his other points also fail as a matter of law. The directors of the foundation did not particularly contest any allegations of self-dealing made by Iseman, instead pivoting to claim that the foundation has only been able to carry out its mission precisely because of the art ties of Ross—and Iseman himself.

As a matter of example, Iseman’s son has served as a trustee of the World Monuments Fund (WMF) since 2022. The WMF received a $500,000 grant in 2021 and $1 million was approved in 2022. And Iseman’s alma mater, where he served on the University Council, received $715,000 in grants. Meanwhile, Iseman sits on the board of the Morgan Library, which received a $100,000 grant.

The directors of the foundation later clarified that they have not accused Iseman of self-dealing, a legal term not used in the motions. Instead, the directors of the foundation assert that any connections between current or former directors and organizations it provides grants to did not pose a conflict of interest.

“Based on their personal networks and relationships in the art world, both Ross and Iseman helped identify institutions for the foundation to support in furtherance of its mission,” the court documents read. “Reliance on networks of this sort is typical throughout the not-for-profit sector.”

Iseman responded to the latest filings by email, stating that his aunt had started the foundation and entrusted the directors—including himself—to protect her legacy and  not “promote their own selfish interests.”

“They even planned to shut the Foundation down altogether by disposing of its many invaluable works of Helen’s art. When I challenged this selfish plan, they tried to throw me off the board, threatening Helen’s wishes,” he said. “The director defendants’ motion to dismiss my case not only lacks merit but is nothing more than another attempt by the defendants to evade accountability for their own disgraceful actions. Because I remain committed to keeping my promise to my mother’s sister by protecting the Foundation according to her wishes, I look forward to proceeding to trial in this case as soon as possible.”