1 / 7

Opening Statement

Opening Statement. Maglica vs. Maglica Fourth Appellate District Court 1993. Reason for Lawsuit. Recovery of half of the company’s revenue as verbally promised and breach of fiduciary duty. Recovery of damages due to emotional distress. Undisputed Facts.

maine
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 vs. Maglica Fourth Appellate District Court 1993

  2. Reason for Lawsuit • Recovery of half of the company’s revenue as verbally promised and breach of fiduciary duty. • Recovery of damages due to emotional distress.

  3. Undisputed Facts • May 14, 1971 Tony Maglica gave Claire a wedding band. • Authorized Claire to make major financial decisions in the company. • Claire was in an unhappy married upon the two of them meeting. • Tony was going through a divorce in 1971.

  4. Plaintiff’s Testimony • Claire met Tony in 1971, in which a verbal marriage ceremony was performed. • A wedding band was placed on Claire’s finger. • Tony promised Claire that she was entitled to half of all the business revenue. • Claire was given an Executive Vice President position in the company. • Claire supported Tony, the business, and his children physically and mentally for 20 years.

  5. Defendant

  6. Defendants Testimony • Tony showed documents of falsified financial aid for Claire. • Tony provided credit cards receipts where the numbers appeared to have been altered. • Provided a letter stating that Claire had no monetary rights to the company with Claire’s name misspelled. • Trusted Claire and provided for her family for over 20 years.

  7. Conclusion • In support of Claire Maglica, we would like the jury to take the following questions into consideration: • Was there a breach of fiduciary duty between the plaintiff and the defendant? • Was there a long term Contribution on behalf of Claire Maglica? • Can a verbal agreement be recognized in the court system?

More Related