Angelina Jolie’s attorneys argue in new court papers that all of the allegations against her in former husband Brad Pitt’s amended lawsuit — in which he claims that by 2016 he had invested nearly $50 million more than the actress in the Chateau Miraval winery the former couple shared — should be dismissed.
After Jolie challenged the previously revised complaint, Pitt’s lawyers hoped to “fix the substantial deficiencies” Jolie pointed out, but Pitt’s allegations “went from bad to worse,” the actress’ attorneys assert in their court papers filed Monday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lia Martin.
Jolie’s lawyers also are asking the judge to reject Pitt’s request for attorneys’ fees.
Chateau Miraval is the 1,300-acre country estate the former couple bought in 2008 and where they married in 2014. Pitt maintains Jolie wrongfully sold her shares in the business to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler without his consent.
In his most updated suit filed in June, Pitt, 59, contends that by 2016 he had funded roughly 70% of the couple’s investment, while Jolie, 48, had put up the remaining 30%. Pitt originally sued in February 2022.
Shefler; his longtime associate, Alexey Oliynik; and the firms, Tenute del Mondo B.V., and SPI Group Holding Ltd. remain defendants in the suits as well as Nouvel LLC, which Jolie formed as a vehicle for holding shares in Chateau Miraval. Before her alleged sale of Nouvel to the Stoli Group in 2021, Jolie was the sole member of the company and held 100% of its membership interest.
Shefler owns SPI Group, which produces Stolichnaya vodka.
In their motion, Jolie’s attorneys seek dismissal of the seven causes of action claimed against her by Pitt and his business, Mongo Bongo, most of which deal with contractual claims. Two other causes of action in the suit are aimed at Nouvel.
“The mere fact that Pitt and Jolie jointly purchased and maintained Chateau Miraval as their family home does not objectively reflect an offer to give Pitt a specific consent right in Jolie’s share of the property, especially given Pitt’s written rejection of any buyout term just days before the purchase,” Jolie’s lawyers maintain in their court papers.
Moreover, Pitt does not allege that he and Jolie had any agreement dictating how their contributions would be treated, let alone that Jolie accepting her “intimate partner’s financial contributions amounted to an offer to give him everlasting rights in her separate property,” Jolie’s attorneys further contend in their court papers.
While a valid written contract by law must be formed at a specific point in time, Pitt never alleges or explains when an implied agreement occurred, according to Jolie’s attorneys’ court papers.
In their argument against Pitt’s demand for attorneys’ fees, Jolie’s lawyers state in their court papers that Pitt’s legal team “never identified any basis for Pitt to be awarded his attorneys’ fees in this case and none of his causes of action against Jolie provide any basis for it.”
The judge is scheduled to hear both of Jolie’s motions on Nov. 15. Last Sept. 6, Nouvel LLC countersued Pitt, alleging claims including tortious interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage.