70 likes | 221 Views
Opening Statement. Maglica v. Maglica State of California Superior Court January 1992. Reasons For Lawsuit. Prove that Claire Maglica and Anthony Maglica were co-owners of Mag Instruments.
E N D
Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica State of California Superior Court January 1992 Representing Plaintiff- Claire Maglica
Reasons For Lawsuit • Prove that Claire Maglica and Anthony Maglica were co-owners of Mag Instruments. • Claire and Anthony Maglica made an oral contract concerning their marriage and the company ownership in May 1971. • Disprove the validity of the Separate Property Agreement signed in 1977 by Claire Maglica.
Undisputed Facts of the Case • Claire and Anthony never legally married • Claire did work as an executive for the company Mag Instrument for 20 years • A Separate Property Agreement was signed in 1977 by Claire Maglica. • Claire and Anthony did reside together in a state of marital like relationship for 23 years
Plaintiff’s Testimony • Claire claims that on May 14, 1971 at the Western Motel in Palm Springs that she and Mr. Maglica made a binding verbal contract concerning joint ownership and operation of the business. • Claire also claims that on May, 14 1971 at the St. Patrick Cathedral in New York the she and Mr. Maglica exchanged vows and rings and married in the church. • Claire states that she was not only joint owner but also acting as Executive Vice President of Mag Instruments for nearly 20 years. • Claire’s claims that she did not know she was signing a Separate Property Agreement releasing her rights to the company in 1977.
Claire’s Role in Maglica Instruments • Claire acted as Executive Vice President for the company for nearly 20 years. • Claire completed payroll each month for the company. • Claire was present and assisted in all decision making aspects of Maglica Instruments along with Anthony Maglica. Maglica Instruments
Defendant’s Testimony • Anthony Maglica claims that there was never a verbal agreement made in regards to marriage or the company’s ownership interest. • Mr. Maglica states that Claire was an important part of the company but that she was nothing more than an employee. • Mr. Maglica claims that Claire holds no interest in Maglica Instruments and that he is retains 100% interest in the company himself.
Conclusion • Cleary the plaintiff and defendant resided in a marriage like relationship for 23 years. • Claire Maglica was in fact a major part of the company’s every day operation and overall success. • Claire and Anthony never formally got married so it is up to the court to decide what if any assets are to be divided between the two.