1 / 10

Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica

Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica. Superior Court of Orange County, California Attorney for the Plaintiff. Reason for Lawsuit. Anthony and Claire entered into a common-law marriage in 1971.

ivi
Download Presentation

Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Opening StatementMaglica v. Maglica Superior Court of Orange County, California Attorney for the Plaintiff

  2. Reason for Lawsuit • Anthony and Claire entered into a common-law marriage in 1971. • Plaintiff Claire claims that they entered into a verbal agreement that she would be entitled to half of Anthony’s company Mag Instrument. • Defendant, Anthony Maglica denies that claim that he named her partial owner .

  3. Undisputed Facts of the Case

  4. Undisputed Facts of the Case

  5. Undisputed Facts of the Case

  6. Plaintiff’s Testimony • The parties entered into a common-law marriage shortly after the divorce from his previous wife. • Claire stated that she did, in fact, sign the Separate Property Agreement but she only did it because Anthony told her that when she did, they could get married. • They entered into a verbal agreement which entitled her to half of the company.

  7. Plaintiff’s Testimony • She worked for the company for several years without receiving any compensation because she was under the impression that they were equal business partners. • She also made a contribution to the company and felt that she deserved to receive money from that investment as well as the salary that she earned over the years.

  8. Defendant’s Testimony • Tony stated that Claire was made aware of the fact that she was neither his wife nor his business partner. • He also agreed that he presented Claire with a Separate Property Agreement but denies any claim that it made mention to his promise to marry Claire. • Instead, the Separate Property Agreement said, “Claire…understands she has no claim against any assets of Anthony Maglica”.

  9. Defendant’s Testimony • He also denies tricking her into signing the Separate Property Agreement. • To prove that Claire was aware of the fact that she was not a partial owner in the business, he gave evidence of a financial aid document that she filled out for her son. • On that document , she stated that she did not own all or part of a business.

  10. Conclusion • In conclusion, the jury decided that Claire should be compensated in the amount of $84 million for her services which benefitted the company. • They decided that the Separate Property Agreement was not an enforceable contract because it lacked the element of consent due to fraud, duress, and undue influence. • They acknowledged that there also was not a contract making her a partner in the company.

More Related