Palimony Jury Awards $84 Million

In a palimony award believed to be the largest ever made, an Orange County jury ruled Friday that flashlight mogul Anthony Maglica must pay $84 million to a woman he lived, worked and shared his name with for more than 20 years, but never married.

The Superior Court jury determined that Maglica, 64, and his former companion, Claire Maglica, 60, had no oral or written agreement to equally share earnings from a former machine shop the couple successfully turned into Mag Instrument Inc., the Ontario-based maker of the popular Mag-Lite flashlights.

But the jury found that Anthony Maglica, the company’s president and sole shareholder, lied to Claire Maglica about providing for her financially and failed to pay her proper wages as the firm’s executive vice president--a position she still holds.

“We’re obviously gratified by what the jury did, and also puzzled by what they did not do. They didn’t find an oral contract,” said Claire’s attorney, John W. Keker, who contended that Anthony Maglica owed his client $200 million--half of the company’s estimated worth.

Lawyers for Anthony Maglica quickly announced their intention to appeal the decision, terming it a grave injustice.

After the verdict, jurors said they decided on the $84 million award after what one called “hard, long conversations.” But they declined to elaborate on their deliberations.

Anthony Maglica, who shook and appeared distraught even before the verdict was announced, declined to comment. Claire Maglica, looking frail from weight loss during the case, also left the courthouse without speaking, much to the chagrin of more than 25 reporters, photographers and camera operators jostling for interviews in a case that has gained nationwide attention.

Anthony Maglica’s attorney, Dennis M. Wasser, said he believes the verdict was wrong because jurors decided the case as if California law recognized common-law marriage--which it does not. They simply felt sorry for Claire Maglica, he said, and gave her the money.

“It was a matter of a defendant having a lot of money, a lady who was 60 years old, and the jury thinking there is enough money to go around,” Wasser said.

Lisa Staight, a family law attorney in Newport Beach, said that even if the jury’s decision is upheld on appeal, it is unlikely to have a widespread impact because so few palimony cases come to court.

But Staight and Linda Chapin, a professor who specializes in contract and family law at the Fullerton campus of Western State University School of Law, said the case should send a very strong message to cohabiting couples: Get everything in writing.

“It’s extremely risky to be relying on an oral agreement,” Chapin said.

“It will come down to a ‘he said, she said’ situation,” Staight said.

All the lawyers involved in the case, as well as legal experts who followed the proceedings, said they believe the award is the largest ever in a palimony case.

The verdict is the latest twist in the story of a couple who achieved rags-to-riches success, only to end up battling in court over a multimillion-dollar business.

Claire and Anthony Maglica shared the same Anaheim Hills home, and the same name, for more than 20 years. Working together, they transformed a humble machine shop into the maker of the lightweight Mag-Lite flashlights that have proved especially popular among police officers.

The couple hobnobbed with Presidents Reagan and Bush, became generous patrons of the Republican Party and made headlines last year as they rescued a blind boy from Bosnia and brought him to California for medical care.

Their relationship had become troubled, however. And last July, Claire Maglica filed a lawsuit seeking half the $400 million she says the flashlight company is worth.

The trial began in a Santa Ana courtroom more than six weeks ago. The tale of their anguished battle was broadcast live nationwide on Court TV, and network officials said the proceedings prompted hundreds of calls from viewers taking sides in the dispute.

Claire Maglica testified that the couple had made a private commitment to share everything. Anthony Maglica asserted that he never promised Claire anything and that she had knowingly signed a property agreement stating that the company was his.

Claire Maglica told the jury that she and Anthony vowed repeatedly during their years together to live “out of one pocket.” She said that commitment dated back to a weekend getaway to Palm Springs in May, 1971.

Based on those commitments, Claire Maglica said she trusted that everything they owned, they owned together, even though their many homes and all the stock of Mag Instrument was only in Anthony Maglica’s name. She said that trust was shattered in January, 1992, when she caught him trying to transfer stock into the names of his four children from a previous marriage.

Anthony Maglica said he was burned financially by divorce once, and vowed never again to loosen his grip on his assets, particularly his business.

He testified that in 1977, after actor Lee Marvin’s onetime companion, Michelle Triola, won a large settlement in a landmark lawsuit in which the term palimony was coined, he and Claire signed an agreement vowing to always keep their property separate. He contends that Claire broke their agreement by setting up a joint bank account behind his back in 1989, and filed a countersuit that sought $385,000 back from her.

“There was one pocket,” Wasser told jurors. “And that pocket was picked.”

Wasser also dismissed the “alleged oral agreement” that Claire Maglica referred to as nothing but “pillow talk.”

In its ruling, the jury rejected Anthony Maglica’s claim for $385,000 and found that the written agreement he testified about was not legally binding because Claire Maglica may have been pressured to sign it.

During the trial Claire Maglica’s attorney, Keker, portrayed Anthony Maglica as an egotist and a liar who denied in depositions ever referring to Claire as his wife publicly, although myriad other accounts contradicted that assertion.

Defense witnesses for Anthony Maglica told a different story. Wasser sought to depict Claire as a greedy big-spender who loved fine clothing and high-class hotels and worked far less than Anthony did at the company. He told the jury that she altered credit card statements at the company to rake in dramatically larger reimbursements than she was owed.

She also made $1.7 million in her years at Mag, an ample salary for the kind of work she did, a defense witness testified. Claire’s attorneys countered that she made only $1 million, far less than they say she should have earned for the work she did over the years.