Opening Statement Maglica v Maglica, 1993 Judge Polis, Orange Co., CA

Recovery of damages from Mr. Maglica for breach of contract Ownership of Mag Instruments

Claire and Tony were married for 23 years Claire signed a Separate Property Agreement Couple registered at hotel as Mr. and Mrs. Maglica The assets of Maglica include $150 million

Wedding band bought at Tiffany’s Went to church at St. Peter’s in NY and exchanged vows, and agreed this meant marriage to both of them She worked as a manager at his company for free Claire made an initial investment Made company decisions as a couple Claire also served as VP Dispute happened when he made a financial decision without consulting her in 1992 Informed his wife she held the role of “employee” in his life

Defendant deceptively gave her a Separate Property Agreement using her maiden name claiming it would constitute as a marriage agreement in 1992, no original and always used married name otherwise She gave false information on a FASFA which is a federal document. It is reasonable that she did not want to lie on this document. Plaintiff did take business trips, but since they were both making financial decisions together, they are mutually guilty.

Denies information claiming he “cannot remember”. Claims 100% interest in business although no mention of partnership laws In January, as a deponent he sated a very negative perception of her, but now claims to be a doting husband=deceptive personality Never considered her his wife and denied vows, but by all appearances acted as husband and wife and denies tricking her into signing agreement.

It is absurd to think that she would sign an agreement denying marriage willingly when she wanted to be married and everyone is agreed to that. Wife signed document as Mrs. Hallis, her former name, not Maglica although all other documents at that time were signed Maglica.

Claire is entitled to at least half, if not more, for her role in her perceived husband’s life. Mr. Maglica has become greedy and does not honor his promises. He has proven to be deceptive on video. Claire should not be denied justice of her part in ownership of Mag Instruments, Inc.