Maglica v. Maglica Orange County Courthouse 1993

Reason for Lawsuit Recovery for half of profits of a shared partnership Antthony Maglica failed to honor the verbal contract of marriage between himself and Claire Maglica Claire Maglica was betrayed by the dishonesty and greed of Anthony Maglica

Undisputed Facts of the Case May Claire and Anthony Maglica met in a hotel room where their partnership was created, according to Claire the couple’s official anniversary date. July The Maglicas went to New York, a trip Claire considers their actually wedding day Tony and Claire sign a Separate Property Agreement Claire finds out Tony plans on giving his kids some of the Mag Instruments stocks without her knowledge

Defendant’s Testimony Anthony Maglica told the court that he did not tell Claire that they were considered married. He said he was 100 percent owner of Maglica Instruments. Claire was only the “eyes and ears” of the company. Claire signed the Separate Property Agreement, which gave Tony control of the company. Anthony Maglica and Mag Instruments

Conclusion Based on the facts, I conclude that Claire Maglica was not entitled to half of the profits of Mag Instruments. The state of California does not recognize a verbal contract of marriage. However, Claire is entitled to 25% of the profits for salary in which she was employed and actively working for the company.