1 / 8

Opening Statement

Opening Statement. Maglica v. Maglica Case# 713117 Judge Robert J. Polis Superior Court of Orange County Attorney for Plaintiff – Claire Maglica. Reason for Lawsuit . Breach of Quasi-Contract Agreement Breach of Quantum Meruit Breach of Putative Spouse Doctrine

etta
Download Presentation

Opening Statement

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 Statement Maglica v. Maglica Case# 713117 Judge Robert J. Polis Superior Court of Orange County Attorney for Plaintiff – Claire Maglica

  2. Reason for Lawsuit • Breach of Quasi-Contract Agreement • Breach of Quantum Meruit • Breach of Putative Spouse Doctrine • Breach of Implied in Fact Contract

  3. Undisputed Facts of the Case • The couple, Anthony Maglica (age 63) and Claire Maglica (age 60) met in May 1971, over 20 years ago. • Anthony and Claire professed their love for each other, and throughout their relationship held each other out as husband and wife, although there was never a legalized marriage. • Anthony and Claire lived and worked with each other, shared an intimate relationship, and a common household together.

  4. Plaintiff’s Testimony • Claire always wanted to be legally married. The couple annually celebrated their May 1971anniversary for over 20 years. • In July 1971 while visiting her family in New York City, Tony purchase Claire a diamond wedding band professing his love for her. • Later that same day, Anthony and Claire walked to St. Patrick’s Cathedral where they exchanged marital vows witnessed by Claire’s sister.

  5. Other Evidence • Claire worked daily with Anthony Maglica creating from the dust of a struggling business, a multi-million dollar company. • Anthony had difficulty speaking English, (raised in Croatia) and he relied in business exclusively upon Claire.

  6. Other Evidence • Quantum Meruit allows recovery for the value of beneficial services, without an actual contract. • Living together, holding themselves as husband and wife, and working together as companions and confidants issufficient to show an implied in fact contract to divide equity.

  7. Plaintiff’s Testimony • Anthony states that he and Claire have had a 20 year relationship. • Anthony states that Claire has no formal interest in the company. • Anthony admits that he could trust Claire and intended to spend the rest of his life with her. • Anthony relied upon Claire in business, and that she was at a professional level in the company.

  8. Conclusion • Anthony and Claire Maglica held themselves out to the public as husband and wife for over 20 years. • The couple lived and worked together, building a multi-million dollar business. • Recovery under quantum meruit does not require a written contract. • An implied in fact contract operates under actual conduct of the parties, other than expressed words.

More Related