Opening StatementOpening Statement

Maglica v. Maglica

Orange County Court, Judge Robert PullisOrange County Court, Judge Robert Pullis19941994

Breach of Contract

Maglica v Maglica brings into question Maglica v Maglica brings into question who owns Maglica Instrumentswho owns Maglica Instruments

Claire Maglica is suing Anthony Maglica Claire Maglica is suing Anthony Maglica (Claire’s lover) for Breach of Contract(Claire’s lover) for Breach of Contract

Claire Maglica is suing for half the value of Claire Maglica is suing for half the value of Maglica Instruments, worth approximately Maglica Instruments, worth approximately 150 million dollars 150 million dollars

Reason for Lawsuit_____________________________________________________________________

1971 - Anthony Maglica was getting a divorce and Claire Maglica 1971 - Anthony Maglica was getting a divorce and Claire Maglica was in an unhappy marriagewas in an unhappy marriage

1971 - On May 141971 - On May 14thth, Anthony and Claire met for lunch in Ontario , Anthony and Claire met for lunch in Ontario and subsequently went to Palm Springs for an intimate get togetherand subsequently went to Palm Springs for an intimate get together

1971 – 1992 Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica lived and worked 1971 – 1992 Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica lived and worked togethertogether

Claire began working at Maglica Instruments and eventually Claire began working at Maglica Instruments and eventually became Executive V.P.became Executive V.P.

1976 – On her son Steven’s Financial Aid Form, Claire checked off 1976 – On her son Steven’s Financial Aid Form, Claire checked off the “No” box that asked did she own all or part of the businessthe “No” box that asked did she own all or part of the business

Undisputed Facts of the Case_____________________________________________________________________

Maglica v.

Maglica

1971

Claire AndTony

first met

1993

Claire files suit against

Tony

1994

Maglica v.

Maglica goes to trial

1992

Claireleaves Tony

1992

Claire & Tony argue about

stock he was

going to give to

his children

1976

Claire signs Financial Aid Form

stating she didn't have

part or whole ownership of business

1971

Informal

vow exchange

Plaintiff’s TestimonyPlaintiff’s TestimonyClaire Maglica met Tony Maglica in 1971. They had lunch in Claire Maglica met Tony Maglica in 1971. They had lunch in Ontario and subsequently went to Palm Springs and had an Ontario and subsequently went to Palm Springs and had an intimate get together. On May 14, 1971, Tony bought her a intimate get together. On May 14, 1971, Tony bought her a wedding ring and they performed an informal vow exchange wedding ring and they performed an informal vow exchange at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. This date would be at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. This date would be the anniversary/wedding date that the two would celebrate the anniversary/wedding date that the two would celebrate each year. They made a solemn and permanent commitment each year. They made a solemn and permanent commitment to each other. Tony told her not to worry about a formal to each other. Tony told her not to worry about a formal marriage, that she was fully protected in his world as his wife marriage, that she was fully protected in his world as his wife and that they are together because they love each other. and that they are together because they love each other.

Claire began working at Maglica Instruments where she did Claire began working at Maglica Instruments where she did Payroll, cleaned bathrooms. Paperwork, etc. She later Payroll, cleaned bathrooms. Paperwork, etc. She later became Executive V.P., in this role nothing happened at became Executive V.P., in this role nothing happened at Maglica Instruments without her direction to counsel. She Maglica Instruments without her direction to counsel. She stated that she made a large contribution to the company’s stated that she made a large contribution to the company’s success. In 1977, Tony had Claire sign a Separate Property success. In 1977, Tony had Claire sign a Separate Property Agreement, he said that if she signed it then they would be Agreement, he said that if she signed it then they would be formally married. She mistaken signing the agreement as formally married. She mistaken signing the agreement as them being married.them being married.

Plaintiff’s Testimony cont’dPlaintiff’s Testimony cont’d

In 1992, Tony planned to give some of the company’s stock In 1992, Tony planned to give some of the company’s stock to his children. When Claire found out about that she asked to his children. When Claire found out about that she asked him how much he was going to give to them. He answered him how much he was going to give to them. He answered with the question of what did that have to do with her. She with the question of what did that have to do with her. She replied that she was his wife and that she had some right to replied that she was his wife and that she had some right to ask. He stated that she didn’t have a piece of paper to prove ask. He stated that she didn’t have a piece of paper to prove that she was his wife. That’s when Claire decided to leave that she was his wife. That’s when Claire decided to leave

Tony and file suit against him.Tony and file suit against him.

Other EvidenceOther EvidenceDefense Attorney Dennis Wasser brought into evidence a series of bills Defense Attorney Dennis Wasser brought into evidence a series of bills Claire sent in to Maglica for reimbursement of business trip chargesClaire sent in to Maglica for reimbursement of business trip charges

A Chinese Restaurant bill was presented A Chinese Restaurant bill was presented The original bill from creditor was only $99.15The original bill from creditor was only $99.15 The sent to Maglica had $899.15The sent to Maglica had $899.15 An “8” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was An “8” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was

changed changed

A second Chinese Restaurant bill was presentedA second Chinese Restaurant bill was presented The original bill from creditor was only $52.40The original bill from creditor was only $52.40 The sent to Maglica had $652.40The sent to Maglica had $652.40 An “6” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was An “6” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was

changedchanged

She denied that was her handwritingShe denied that was her handwriting

Defendant’s TestimonyDefendant’s Testimony

Tony Maglica denied that him and Claire didn’t need a formal Tony Maglica denied that him and Claire didn’t need a formal marriage. He denied that they were man and wife and that they didn’t marriage. He denied that they were man and wife and that they didn’t need a piece of paper to show they were married. He said that he need a piece of paper to show they were married. He said that he could trust her and that she was very important to him, she was a could trust her and that she was very important to him, she was a person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with and she was person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with and she was someone he could relate everything with. He was generous and someone he could relate everything with. He was generous and loving to Clair, her family and children. loving to Clair, her family and children.

By contrast, in a deposition taken a few months earlier, Tony stated By contrast, in a deposition taken a few months earlier, Tony stated that Clair was his girlfriend and she eventually became Executive V.P. that Clair was his girlfriend and she eventually became Executive V.P. because of that. He stated that she was his eyes and ears at the because of that. He stated that she was his eyes and ears at the company and would report to him. He affirmed the he had 100% company and would report to him. He affirmed the he had 100% ownership interest of Maglica Instrument, all the decisions of the ownership interest of Maglica Instrument, all the decisions of the company were made by him and Claire had no interest in the company were made by him and Claire had no interest in the company. He declared that he had not made any commitments to company. He declared that he had not made any commitments to Claire and that he had not heard any mention of Claire’s Claire and that he had not heard any mention of Claire’s remembrance of vows exchanged at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Tony remembrance of vows exchanged at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Tony also, denied that he did not tell Claire if she signed the Separate also, denied that he did not tell Claire if she signed the Separate Property Agreement, then they would get married.Property Agreement, then they would get married.

..

Other EvidenceOther Evidence

Plaintiff’s Attorney, John Keker, brought into Plaintiff’s Attorney, John Keker, brought into evidence the Separate Property Agreementevidence the Separate Property Agreement

Keker asked Tony Maglica about Claire’s Keker asked Tony Maglica about Claire’s signature. Apparently, Claire’s name was not signature. Apparently, Claire’s name was not spelled correctlyspelled correctly One part of the agreement had her name as HalazOne part of the agreement had her name as Halaz Another part of the agreement had her name as HalzaAnother part of the agreement had her name as Halza During that time she was using Claire Maglica with During that time she was using Claire Maglica with

anything dealing with Maglica Instrumentsanything dealing with Maglica Instruments

ConclusionConclusion

The undisputed facts of this breach of contract include Anthony Maglica The undisputed facts of this breach of contract include Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica both lived and worked together at Maglica and Claire Maglica both lived and worked together at Maglica Instruments between 1971 and 1992. They instantly became lovers Instruments between 1971 and 1992. They instantly became lovers shortly after meeting in 1971, while still married to other people. Claire shortly after meeting in 1971, while still married to other people. Claire stated that the two had an informal vow exchange in 1971 and ever stated that the two had an informal vow exchange in 1971 and ever since have conducted their relationship as if they were married. She since have conducted their relationship as if they were married. She also contends that Tony has always lead her to believe that they didn’t also contends that Tony has always lead her to believe that they didn’t need a piece of paper to show that they were married; instead, their need a piece of paper to show that they were married; instead, their love was what mattered most . love was what mattered most .

He repeatedly told her throughout their relationship, that whatever they He repeatedly told her throughout their relationship, that whatever they built together they owned together as well. Claire eventually became built together they owned together as well. Claire eventually became Executive Vice President at Maglica Instruments. Tony has disputed Executive Vice President at Maglica Instruments. Tony has disputed any and all accusations of an express contract between the two any and all accusations of an express contract between the two concerning Clair having equal ownership of the company. In 1992, concerning Clair having equal ownership of the company. In 1992, Claire had an argument with Anthony concerning stock that he was Claire had an argument with Anthony concerning stock that he was going to give to his children. This dispute resulted in Claire filing a going to give to his children. This dispute resulted in Claire filing a breach on contract suit against Tony for half the value of Maglica breach on contract suit against Tony for half the value of Maglica Instruments. Instruments.

Conclusion cont’d.Conclusion cont’d.

Under California Law, common law marriage is not recognized; Under California Law, common law marriage is not recognized; therefore, Tony and Claire’s 20 year relationship would not be viewed as therefore, Tony and Claire’s 20 year relationship would not be viewed as such. But, California Law does recognize breach of express contract. I such. But, California Law does recognize breach of express contract. I conclude that Claire should prevail the express contract. I believe that conclude that Claire should prevail the express contract. I believe that Mr. Maglica did tell Claire that whatever they built together who be Mr. Maglica did tell Claire that whatever they built together who be shared by both of them. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, shared by both of them. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, within that time Claire became Executive Vice President at Maglica within that time Claire became Executive Vice President at Maglica Instruments and he allowed Claire to use his last name as if they were Instruments and he allowed Claire to use his last name as if they were legally married provides a very clear case that she was his partner on legally married provides a very clear case that she was his partner on both a personal and business level.both a personal and business level.