2. Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica Superior Court of Orange County California 1994 Counsel for the Defendant

3. Reasons for Lawsuit  Claire Maglica is suing for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of partnership agreement, and meruit.  Claire Maglica believes she and Anthony Maglica were married.  Claire Maglica feels she is entitled to half of Mag Industry.  Claire Maglia believes she and Anthony Maglia had entered into an oral contract entitling her to half of Mag Industry.

4. Undisputed Facts of the Case  Anthony Maglica founded Mag Industry in 1955.  Anthony Maglica divorced in 1971 and maintained complete control over Mag Industry.  Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica began their relationship in 1971.  Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica cohabitated, worked together, and shared the same surname throughout their relationship.  Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica were never had a legal marriage contract.  Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica never had a written agreement to hold property for each other.  When Mag Instrument was incorporated in 1974, all shares went into Anthony Maglica’s name.

5. Testimony of Plaintiff, Claire Maglica  Claire Maglica testifies that she and Anthony Maglica agreed to share everything in life, good times, bad times, and benefits and liabilities.  She now believes her relationship with Anthony Maglica to be based on unfulfilled promises and commitments.  She believes that the document she signed with Anthony Maglica in 1977 created a legal marriage and denies any knowledge that the document was a Separation of Property Agreement.  She always desired a legal marriage, but Anthony Maglica always refused.  She and Anthony Maglica shared one office and managed Mag Industry as one unit  She managed all of the paperwork, managed the business side, handled payroll, and performed cleaning around the office.  Throughout her twenty plus year relationship with Anthony Maglica, she never worried about her stake in the business because she was given constant verbal reassurances by Anthony that the business was partially hers.

6. Further Testimony of Claire Maglica  In 1992, Claire Maglica discovered that Anthony Maglica intended to sell stock in Mag Industry to his children without her knowledge.  When she questioned him about this decision, he informed her that she held no interest in Mag Industry.  She filed suit against Anthony Maglica in 1992 after learning he planned to sell stock without her knowledge.

7. Other Evidence for the Plaintiff  Claire Maglica states that she and Anthony Maglica celebrated May 14 as their wedding and anniversary date.  She reports that she and Anthony Maglica exchanged vows in front of witnesses at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York in 1971.  She changed her surname to Maglica based on the belief that she and Anthony Maglica were married.  Her name is misspelled on the Separation of Property Agreement in multiple instances throughout the document.  She denies every seeing the complete Separation of Property Agreement before 1992 when litigation began.  She denies that it is her handwriting on the fraudulent Chinese restaurant receipts.

8. Testimony of the Defendant, Anthony Maglica  He denies that he and Claire Maglica were ever legally married.  He is the only individual responsible for business decisions concerning Mag Industry  He denies ever referring to himself and Claire Maglica as man and wife.  He does not recall exchanging vows with Claire Maglica at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral.  He denies that Claire Maglica ever held any interest in Mag Industry.  He admits that Clair Maglica served as his “eyes and ears”, but maintains that he made all business decisions concerning Mag Industry.  He maintains that he has no legal obligations to Claire Maglica.

9. Other Evidence for the Defendant  Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica both signed a Separation of Property Agreement.  The Separation of Property Agreement explicitly states that “Claire … understands she has no claim against any asset of Anthony Maglica.”  Claire Maglica denied owning any part in any business on a student loan application for her child in 1976.  Two separate receipts from the same Chinese Restaurant submitted by Claire Maglica to Mag Industry for reimbursement of business expenses have been altered to show a significantly larger amount was spent than is shown on the original receipts.  Claire Maglica never asked Anthony Maglica to sign any agreement giving her half the interest in Mag Industry.

10. Conclusion  Claire Maglica is not entitled to any interest in Mag Industry.  Claire Maglica and Anthony Maglica never agreed by contract, verbal or written, to share equally interest in Mag Industry.  Claire and Anthony Maglica were never legally married. Based on the above, Anthony Maglica defends himself against any claims brought by Claire Maglica against him in this matter.