Download
1 / 12
140 likes | 364 Views
Opening Statement. Maglica v. Maglica United States Superior Court of Appeals 1994. Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Claire Halasz (Maglica).
E N D
Opening Statement Maglica v. Maglica United States Superior Court of Appeals 1994
Opening Statement on Behalf of the Plaintiff, Claire Halasz (Maglica) • May it please the court, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury – the evidence will show in the case that the Defendant, Anthony Maglica, intentionally kept benefits from being conferred to our client, the Plaintiff, Claire Maglica. May it further please the court that we will prove that the retaining of these benefits without paying for it will result in unjust enrichment on behalf of our client, the party receiving the benefit.
Photo of Anthony Maglica Reason For Lawsuit • Breach of contract on behalf of defendant • Breach of partnership agreement • Fraud • Breach of fiduciary duty and quantum meruit
Our Firm We will represent on behalf of the Plaintiff, Claire Halasz, aka, Claire Maglica.
Undisputed Facts of the Case • The business, Mag Instruments, was solely owned by the defendant, Anthony Maglica. • Defendant founded his own machine shop business, Mag Instrument, in 1955. • Defendant divorced in 1971 from previous marriage and kept the business. Defendant met Plaintiff, Claire Halasz that same year. • Plaintiff and Defendant were never legally married, but lived together and worked together and held themselves out as husband and wife.
Plaintiff and defendant got on famously and plaintiff began to use the name Claire Maglica. Plaintiff argued that she and defendant had a deal for a share of equity in defendant’s business. Plaintiff and defendant worked together side by side building the business. Plaintiff and defendant were paid equal salaries from the business after its incorporation. In 1978, business began to manufacture flashlights and the business boomed. Undisputed Facts of the Case (cont’d)
Undisputed Facts of the Case (cont’d) • In 1974, business was incorporated and all shares went into Anthony’s name. • After business boomed in 1978, it became worth hundreds of millions of dollars. • In 1992, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant was trying to transfer stock to his children but not her, and the couple separated in October. • In June of 1993, Plaintiff sued Defendant for $150 million, ½ of the interest of the business. • In 1994, the case went to trail.
Claire argued that she and Tony made a solemn and permanent commitment to each other on May 14, 1971, which would become an anniversary date for them. Claire argued that Tony promised that what they built together would be theirs together in exchange for Claire living with Tony and working for his company. Plaintiff argued that she and Tony had a deal for a share of equity in his business. Claire knew and understood that by the law in California, she and Tony were not legally married, but Tony would tell her that they were married and that she was fully protected as his wife. Claire stated that Tony told her that if she signed the Separate Property agreement, that they would be formerly married. She looked at the document and signed it, but did not receive a copy until 1992 and stated that she did not see the original document. Plaintiff’s Testimony
Claire claimed to have made large financial contributions to Tony’s business and that her ideas and hard work caused business to boom. Claire claimed that no business decisions were made without her direction. Claire stated that Tony gave her a ring she and Tony exchanged vows at a cathedral. Claire stated that she asked Tony how much of the business he was planning to give to his children and that he stated it was not her business and she was not his wife, but an employee. In 1992 Claire discovered that Anthony was trying to transfer stock to his children but not her, and the couple split up in October. Plaintiff’s Testimony (cont’d)
Tony claimed he never agreed to give Plaintiff a share of the business. Tony presented evidence that in 1977, he and Claire signed a Separate Property agreement pointing out the statement “Claire understands she has no claim against any assets of Anthony Maglica”. Tony claimed that he did not tell Claire that after signing the Separation of Property form that they would be married. Tony stated that Claire knew that she had no interest in the company. Tony stated that he trusted Claire with all of his company’s business and could spend the rest of his life with her. Tony claimed that during the trial was the first that he had ever heard about the ceremony and exchange of vows at a cathedral. Tony claimed that he could not recall ever stating that he and Claire were man and wife. Defendant’s Testimony Photo of Anthony Maglica
Conclusion The Maglite • Defendant pleaded that he was perfectly willing to provide for Claire and her family and that he deeply cared for Claire. • Our client, Claire could recover for the value of her services, but not for the benefit conferred on the business. In this case, the court will not impose “a highly generous and extraordinary contract that the parties did not make.” • In 1994, the case was tried and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $85 million, but the resulting judgment was reversed and case was later settled for $29 million in favor of the Plaintiff.
