Superior Court of Orange County, California Attorney for the Plaintiff

  Anthony and Claire entered into a common-law marriage in  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. Reason for Lawsuit

 1971—Parties entered in a relationship. 1971—Anthony presented Claire with a Separate Property Agreement 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. Undisputed Facts of the Case

  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. Plaintiff’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. Defendant’s Testimony

  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. Conclusion