Superior Court of Orange County, California
Attorney for the Plaintiff
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 .
Undisputed Facts of the
Case
1971—Parties
entered in a
relationship.
1971—Anthony
presented Claire
with a Separate
Property
Agreement.
1971-present—
Claire performed
services for the
company for
several years
without receiving
monetary
compensation.
Undisputed Facts of the
Case
1971—Parties
entered in a
relationship.
Anthony
presented Claire
with a Separate
Property
Agreement.
Claire performed
services for the
company for
several years
without receiving
monetary
compensation.
Undisputed Facts of the
Case
1971—Parties
entered in a
relationship.
Anthony
presented Claire
with a Separate
Property
Agreement.
Claire performed
services for the
company for
several years
without receiving
monetary
compensation.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
0
