‘Frivolous’: Angelina Jolie Accuses Ex Brad Pitt Of Having No Evidence to Back Up His Claims in $250 Million War Over French Estate
Nov. 9 2023, Published 11:30 a.m. ET
Angelina Jolie criticized her ex-husband Brad Pitt for failing to prove she had any duty to seek his approval before selling her stake in a French winery they purchased while together — and she wants a judge to dismiss her from his lawsuit.
According to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.com, Jolie called out Pitt after he fought her efforts to escape the suit.
Last year, Pitt sued Jolie after she sold her 50% stake, held in a company named Nouvel, in an estate named Chateau Miraval to a Russian oligarch named Yuri Shefler.
The couple purchased the property while married with the plan to pass it down to their children. They both owned 50% of the company.
Pitt said he spent years turning the winery into a successful business — along with tens of millions of dollars.
In 2021, Jolie told Pitt she wanted out of the business for personal reasons. She wrote an emotional email explaining her decision.
The estate.
The two agreed to find a buyer for Jolie’s stake. At one point, Pitt and his team agreed to pay Jolie $54 million. However, the talks fell apart about Jolie submitted allegations of domestic violence against Pitt in their divorce war. Pitt denied the allegations.
The proposed deal was never signed. Jolie then sold her stake to Shelfer. Pitt said Jolie broke an oral promise not to sell her stake without the approval of the buyer.
In his lawsuit, Pitt accused Jolie of picking Shefler due to his ties to Putin. The actor believed Jolie wanted to ruin Miraval’s reputation by having it associated with the vicious Russian leader.
Insiders said Pitt hasn't introduced Ines to his kids out of a 'desire to avoid additional tensions' with Jolie.
Pitt accused Shefler and his team of attempting a “hostile takeover” of the business. He sued demanding the sale that Jolie executed be canceled.
Jolie’s ex-company Nouvel then filed a $250 million countersuit against Pitt which accused him of misusing the company assets for vanity projects.
Recently, Pitt asked the court to shut down Jolie’s motion to dismiss several claims.
He argued Jolie was wrong in stating she did not need his approval to sell her stake.
“Jolie is wrong—the Complaint cites many statements Jolie made over the years. But in any event, implied-in-fact contracts based on conduct are well-established under California law, and the detailed factual allegations in the Complaint— which Jolie resists or ignores—state such a claim,” his lawyer argued.
He added, “Jolie’s summary efforts to dismiss these independent claims are meritless.”
Now, in a newly filed motion, Jolie and her lawyers argue Pitt has yet to provide any evidence she was obligated to seek his approval before any sale of her stake.
Visit the all-new RADAR SPORTS for all the on and off-field activities of the biggest names in the games.
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
The estranged exes have six kids together.
“Despite an 18-page opposition, a 54-page Second Amended Complaint, and 224 paragraphs of allegations, [Pitt] still cannot identify conduct that objectively demonstrates that defendant Angelina Jolie granted him the specific, unqualified, and everlasting consent right in her property he now claims to have. By their nature, implied contracts reflect simple agreements where the parties’ actions easily and unambiguously demonstrate the terms of the contract,” her lawyer wrote.
“Pitt’s identified conduct merely demonstrates the unremarkable fact that he worked on his “passion” to the benefit of himself, Jolie, and their family. But that work does not demonstrate the Jolie gave Pitt a consent right or the terms governing any consent right,” her lawyer added. “How long did the supposed consent right last? What conditions, if any, could be placed on that consent right? Did the consent right survive separation?”
Jolie’s lawyer said the idea of an implied contract is “frivolous.” He demanded the claims be thrown out immediately.
