Brad Pitt Scores Small Victory In Court After Actor Accuses Ex-Wife Angelina Jolie Of Refusing To Turn Over Key Documents In Battle Over $164 Million French Estate
Dec. 7 2022, Published 12:00 p.m. ET
A Los Angeles judge sided with Brad Pitt and scheduled a hearing after the actor accused his ex-wife Angelina Jolie and her company of refusing to turn over key documents as part of their bitter court battle, RadarOnline.com has learned.
As RadarOnline.com previously reported, earlier this year, Pitt, 58, sued Jolie, 47, after she sold her stake in a $164 million French estate and vineyard named Chateau Miraval S.A. — that they purchased while married.
Pitt said they had agreed to never sell off their stake without the other’s approval. In the suit, he revealed in 2021, Jolie said she needed to sell her interest because she now objected to owning an alcohol company. Pitt said they began working on finding a buyer.
However, as their negotiations continued, a decision came down in their custody battle. Pitt said Jolie was furious that the judge sided with him and then backed out of talks about the vineyard.
Instead, he said she sold off her stake to a company named Tenute del Mondo that is “indirectly owned and controlled” by a Russian oligarch named Yuri Shefler. Pitt said Shefler has attempted a “hostile takeover” in the months since.
Pitt wants the court to void the sale. In response, Jolie’s company Nouvel filed a $250 million countersuit against Pitt. It accused the actor of attempting to seize control of Chateau Miraval and wasting assets for his benefit and that of his own companies and friends.
Further, it said Pitt wasted the company’s money by "spending millions on vanity projects, including more than $1 million on swimming pool renovations and other funds restoring a recording studio."
In addition, Jolie has asked the court to dismiss several of the claims against her. She argued there was never a contract to not sell their interest in the estate.
Her lawyer said Pitt “does not even allege an oral agreement. Instead, Pitt posits that, through conduct alone, he somehow understood that Jolie granted him the specific right to consent to or veto—for the rest of her life and regardless of circumstance—any attempt by Jolie to sell her interest in the chateau to anyone else.”
Recently, Pitt accused Jolie and her company of “refusing to produce any documents” until the court hears their motion to dismiss claims.
He said Jolie and her company were “trying to shield even the agreements concerning the purported sale at the heart of this dispute.”
Pitt demanded an informal discovery conference be set for him to argue about the documents.
His lawyer accused Nouvel of having refused “to provide basic document discovery.” [Pitt’s] claims center on Jolie’s unlawful sale of Nouvel to the [Tenute del Mondo]. [Tenute del Mondo] are generally resisting service and jurisdiction. But Nouvel is a California LLC that must comply with its discovery obligations,” his lawyer argued.
Pitt said he wants to see the sale agreement between Jolie and Tenute del Mondo. However, he claimed her company gave excuse after excuse.
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.
Further, he accused [Tenute del Mondo] of directing Jolie and her company on what to do in the legal battle. He said Tenute del Mondo has been providing documents and information to Jolie with which to countersue him and defend Nouvel.
“But Nouvel claims it does not have custody or control of the [Tenute del Mondo] documents and will not produce any that were not specifically provided to it,” he said.
Days later, in court documents, Jolie called the lawsuit “malicious” and “part of a problematic pattern” by Pitt. She called the request for a conference “premature.”
Now, the judge has granted Pitt’s motion and scheduled a conference in December to review the document dispute. The case is ongoing.
