Presentation on theme: "Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica Representing Plaintiff."— Presentation transcript:
Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica Representing Plaintiff
Reason for Lawsuit Claire reasonably believed they were married and is owed half of the company’s assets in the divorce. Claire was reasonably expressed to be in a legal oral contract that was broken. Claire was also lead to believe that she owned half or in part of Mag Instrument.
Undisputed Facts of the Case Anthony Maglica, a Croatian immigrant, founded his own machine shop business, Mag Instrument, in 1955. He was divorced in 1971 and kept the business. In the same year he met Claire Halasz, an interior designer. They got along very well and lived together, holding themselves out as man and wife—hence Claire changing her name to Maglica. The business was incorporated in 1974 and all shares went into Anthony’s name. Anthony was president and Claire was executive vice president, and they were paid equal salaries after the incorporation. Mag Instrument is now worth hundreds of million dollars.
Undisputed Facts Con’t In 1992 Claire discovered that Anthony was trying to transfer stock to his children but not to her, and the couple split. Claire is suing Anthony for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of partnership agreement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and quantum meruit.
Claire was promised that the two would share everything in life, good times and the bad, and the liabilities and benefits. She also believes this was a relationship that was built on promises and commitments that were never fulfilled. Claire said she was lead to believe the document she signed in 1977 was a document that would make their marriage official and not a separation of property agreement. Claire always wanted a marriage and Anthony did not. The two shared one office and ran the company as one unit. Claire took care of all the paperwork., managing the business side, payroll, cleaned the bathroom, swept the shop. In the 23 years the two were a couple Claire never worried about losing the business because she was lead to believe that she would be taken care of and the business was part hers. Claire filed suit in 1992 because it was when she found out that Mr. Maglica was giving his children part in the stock with out talking to her first. This is when Mr. Maglica proceeded to tell Claire that she had no decisions in the company’s assets.
Other Evidence for the Plaintiff Celebrated 5/14/1971 as their anniversary date Vows were said in front of witnesses but not in a legal capacity. She believed she signed a marriage document and therefore changes her last name to reflect so. The Separation of Properties agreement had Claire’s name mispelled. Claire also states that it was not her handwriting on the fraudulent receipts.
Mr. Maglica claims that no such agreement was ever made. Mr. Maglica did agree that Claire was a asset to the company and she did a very good job. He trusted her to take care of thing in his absence. A earlier video revealed that Mr. Maglica only had Claire in the executive position because she was his girlfriend. He never analogizes Claire as his wife. Says he owes obligation to Claire because he cares for her and want to take care of her. Reimbursement bills were changed so Claire could get more money back back from the company.
Conclusion Claire is entitled to part of the profits from the company because she was lead to believe for 23 years she had a stake in the company’s interest. Based on the previously stated Claire is filing the lawsuit for the following reasons: ◦Breach of Contract ◦Breach of Partnership ◦Fraud ◦Breach of Fiduciary Duty ◦Quantum Meruit
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.