Attorney Testifies About ’77 Document in Palimony Trial : Litigation: Fired by Claire Maglica, he states she was aware a decade ago she did not own any part of the lucrative flashlight empire she now says is half hers.

An attorney who once handled Anthony Maglica’s wills testified Tuesday that Claire Maglica was well aware a decade ago that she did not own any part of the multimillion-dollar flashlight empire she now says is half hers.

*

Attorney Bernard P. Simons said that Claire Maglica talked to him in the early 1980s about an agreement that the Anaheim Hills couple signed in 1977 vowing never to merge their assets, and told him that she had sought legal advice about the agreement.

His testimony came as the defense presented its case to refute Claire Maglica’s contention that she is entitled to half the $300-million flashlight business she says she helped Anthony Maglica build.

Simons, who was fired by Claire Maglica, contradicted a key portion of her testimony in the palimony case against her live-in lover of 23 years--that she believed the 1977 document she signed after a romantic dinner said they would someday marry.

The document only reinforced her understanding of an oral agreement they made when they met to always share everything, says Claire Maglica, the 60-year-old executive vice president of Mag Instrument Inc.

But Simons testified Tuesday that Claire Maglica told him more than a decade ago that she had sought legal advice about the 1977 agreement from Marvin M. Mitchelson, the attorney who won a landmark settlement for actor Lee Marvin’s girlfriend, in the case that coined the term “palimony.”

“Claire told me that she had met with Marvin Mitchelson and had taken him a copy of the separate property agreement, and Claire said he had told her it would not preclude her from suing Tony for a piece of Mag Instrument,” Simons told an Orange County Superior Court jury Tuesday.

Later, in 1984 or 1985, Simons said, he discussed the agreement and Claire’s visit to Mitchelson again in a dinner meeting with Claire, Anthony and Claire’s daughter, where they also talked about Anthony’s 1983 will and the fact that it granted Claire only one-fifth of Anthony’s estate and gave nothing to Claire’s children from her first marriage.

“Did Claire ever tell you that Tony had promised her a piece of the company?” Anthony Maglica’s attorney, Dennis M. Wasser, asked.

“Quite to the contrary,” Simons said.

In addition to handling Anthony Maglica’s wills and other matters related to his property, Simons said he also handled litigation for Mag Instrument until Claire Maglica fired him in 1986.

*

On cross-examination, Claire’s attorney, John W. Keker, sought to indicate that Simons was biased against Claire Maglica, because he denied repeatedly in his deposition and on the witness stand that he ever heard her referred to as Claire Maglica in his years of working closely with the couple, but knew her only as “Claire.” Though they never married, Claire had taken Anthony Maglica’s name and many people knew them as a married couple.

Keker also questioned other elements of Simons’ testimony.

“She never met with Marvin Mitchelson, did she?” Keker asked.

“She told me she did,” Simons countered.

Jim Zecchini, corporate vice president of Mag, testified Tuesday that Claire Maglica was never an owner and had far fewer responsibilities than Anthony Maglica. He also said that several documents harmful to Claire’s contention that she is part-owner of Mag disappeared from his office after she filed the palimony lawsuit.

Claire Maglica’s attorneys say that she played a strong role in the company, heading several departments and coming up with ideas to market the Mini Mag flashlights in many colors.

Zecchini testified that Anthony is the “key man” at Mag, working weekends and making major decisions. Zecchini also said that he supervises more people than Claire Maglica does.

“Does that make you an owner of the company?” Wasser asked.

“No,” Zecchini replied.

Zecchini testified that Claire Maglica came into his office before the trial and told him she would change her image before she appeared in court.

“She said she would dress down and not wear any makeup,” Zecchini said, “and that she would know how to play the part of the ‘old lady.’ ”