Brad Pitt’s legal team reportedly demands Angelina Jolie’s financial and property records in the newly filed documents. They allege that she misrepresented her reasons for selling her stake in the winery in 2021, which she sold to Russian oligarch Yuri Shefler. The following year, Pitt filed a lawsuit to reverse the sale, stating that he and Jolie had a verbal and written agreement not to sell their stake without each other’s consent.
Brad Pitt’s Miraval fight is reaching into Angelina Jolie’s Hollywood earnings
The Château Miraval case has received new developments, with Pitt’s legal team wanting details about Jolie’s professional earnings. They demand these records from the time she and Pitt got separated in 2016 to when she officially sold her stake. According to the filing, they requested the documents from Jolie about “upfront fees for film roles, brand sponsorships, or other professional services Jolie performed leading up to the time when she allegedly determined that she needed to sell Miraval in order to achieve financial independence.”
They further stated that these documents would help determine whether Jolie really needed to sell her stake to achieve financial independence, as she had previously claimed. They believe it is important for her to provide the requested records; otherwise, the jury may not get the full picture.
In transcripts from a July 8 discovery conference, Jolie’s lawyer objected to Pitt’s legal team’s request. “I think this is an overreach by them and a gross one and essentially more controlling conduct by Pitt,” the lawyer said. They also claimed that Pitt’s demand to make Jolie sign the NDA appears “abusive and controlling.”
They further added, “For five years she put her career on hold so she can help her family heal from substantial physical and emotional abuse that Mr. Pitt put on that family” (via PEOPLE).
Ahead of the new filing, earlier this year, Jolie secured a legal victory. It happened when a judge ruled that Pitt had not provided enough evidence to obtain her communications, which her lawyers earlier argued were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Originally reported by Shazmeen Navrange on ComingSoon.net.
