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.