Opening Statement Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica Orange County Court, Judge Robert Pullis 1994 Breach of Contract

Maglica v Maglica brings into question who owns Maglica Instruments Claire Maglica is suing Anthony Maglica (Claire’s lover) for Breach of Contract Claire Maglica is suing for half the value of Maglica Instruments, worth approximately 150 million dollars Reason for Lawsuit _____________________________________________________________________

Anthony Maglica was getting a divorce and Claire Maglica was in an unhappy marriage On May 14 th, Anthony and Claire met for lunch in Ontario and subsequently went to Palm Springs for an intimate get together 1971 – 1992 Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica lived and worked together Claire began working at Maglica Instruments and eventually became Executive V.P – On her son Steven’s Financial Aid Form, Claire checked off the “No” box that asked did she own all or part of the business Undisputed Facts of the Case _____________________________________________________________________

Maglica v. Maglica 1971 Claire And Tony first met 1971 Informal vow exchange 1976 Claire signs Financial Aid Form stating she didn't have part or whole ownership of business 1992 Claire & Tony argue about stock he was going to give to his children 1992 Claire leaves Tony 1993 Claire files suit against Tony 1994 Maglica v. Maglica goes to trial

Plaintiff’s Testimony Claire Maglica met Tony Maglica in They had lunch in Ontario and subsequently went to Palm Springs and had an intimate get together. On May 14, 1971, Tony bought her a wedding ring and they performed an informal vow exchange at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. This date would be the anniversary/wedding date that the two would celebrate each year. They made a solemn and permanent commitment to each other. Tony told her not to worry about a formal marriage, that she was fully protected in his world as his wife and that they are together because they love each other. Claire began working at Maglica Instruments where she did Payroll, cleaned bathrooms. Paperwork, etc. She later became Executive V.P., in this role nothing happened at Maglica Instruments without her direction to counsel. She stated that she made a large contribution to the company’s success. In 1977, Tony had Claire sign a Separate Property Agreement, he said that if she signed it then they would be formally married. She mistaken signing the agreement as them being married.

Plaintiff’s Testimony cont’d In 1992, Tony planned to give some of the company’s stock to his children. When Claire found out about that she asked him how much he was going to give to them. He answered with the question of what did that have to do with her. She replied that she was his wife and that she had some right to ask. He stated that she didn’t have a piece of paper to prove that she was his wife. That’s when Claire decided to leave Tony and file suit against him.

Other Evidence Defense Attorney Dennis Wasser brought into evidence a series of bills Claire sent in to Maglica for reimbursement of business trip charges A Chinese Restaurant bill was presented The original bill from creditor was only $99.15 The original bill from creditor was only $99.15 The sent to Maglica had $ The sent to Maglica had $ An “8” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was changed An “8” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was changed A second Chinese Restaurant bill was presented The original bill from creditor was only $52.40 The original bill from creditor was only $52.40 The sent to Maglica had $ The sent to Maglica had $ An “6” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was changed An “6” was added to the total and the tip total along with the subtotal was changed She denied that was her handwriting

Defendant’s Testimony Tony Maglica denied that him and Claire didn’t need a formal marriage. He denied that they were man and wife and that they didn’t need a piece of paper to show they were married. He said that he could trust her and that she was very important to him, she was a person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with and she was someone he could relate everything with. He was generous and loving to Clair, her family and children. By contrast, in a deposition taken a few months earlier, Tony stated that Clair was his girlfriend and she eventually became Executive V.P. because of that. He stated that she was his eyes and ears at the company and would report to him. He affirmed the he had 100% ownership interest of Maglica Instrument, all the decisions of the company were made by him and Claire had no interest in the company. He declared that he had not made any commitments to Claire and that he had not heard any mention of Claire’s remembrance of vows exchanged at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Tony also, denied that he did not tell Claire if she signed the Separate Property Agreement, then they would get married..

Other Evidence Plaintiff’s Attorney, John Keker, brought into evidence the Separate Property Agreement Keker asked Tony Maglica about Claire’s signature. Apparently, Claire’s name was not spelled correctly One part of the agreement had her name as Halaz One part of the agreement had her name as Halaz Another part of the agreement had her name as Halza Another part of the agreement had her name as Halza During that time she was using Claire Maglica with anything dealing with Maglica Instruments During that time she was using Claire Maglica with anything dealing with Maglica Instruments

Conclusion The undisputed facts of this breach of contract include Anthony Maglica and Claire Maglica both lived and worked together at Maglica Instruments between 1971 and They instantly became lovers shortly after meeting in 1971, while still married to other people. Claire stated that the two had an informal vow exchange in 1971 and ever since have conducted their relationship as if they were married. She also contends that Tony has always lead her to believe that they didn’t need a piece of paper to show that they were married; instead, their love was what mattered most. He repeatedly told her throughout their relationship, that whatever they built together they owned together as well. Claire eventually became Executive Vice President at Maglica Instruments. Tony has disputed any and all accusations of an express contract between the two concerning Clair having equal ownership of the company. In 1992, Claire had an argument with Anthony concerning stock that he was going to give to his children. This dispute resulted in Claire filing a breach on contract suit against Tony for half the value of Maglica Instruments.

Conclusion cont’d. Under California Law, common law marriage is not recognized; therefore, Tony and Claire’s 20 year relationship would not be viewed as such. But, California Law does recognize breach of express contract. I conclude that Claire should prevail the express contract. I believe that Mr. Maglica did tell Claire that whatever they built together who be shared by both of them. The fact that they lived together for 20 years, within that time Claire became Executive Vice President at Maglica Instruments and he allowed Claire to use his last name as if they were legally married provides a very clear case that she was his partner on both a personal and business level.