Brad Pitt has branded ex-wife Angelina Jolie a hypocrite for claiming he wanted to use an NDA in the sale of their French vineyard to ‘control’ her – despite regularly gagging her own staff with similar contracts.
Pitt, 60, and Jolie, 48, have been locked in a bitter battle over their French vineyard and home after the Tomb Raider star sold her $64million stake to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021.
The Chateau Miraval estate, which produces an award-winning sparkling rosé, is at the center of a long-running court battle between the pair.
Legal documents seen by DailyMail.com show that the actress claimed she walked out of talks to sell her part of the vineyard to Pitt for $54million because of standard non-disparagement clause in his proposed contract for the sale.
She claims that it was an ‘unconscionable’ attempt by her ex-partner to ‘control her’ after their split.
Brad Pitt is now demanding ex-wife Angelina Jolie turn over NDA documents for previous agreements she’s entered with third parties, in the latest motion in their ongoing legal battle over their Miraval winery. He is pictured at the chateau with business partner Marc Perrin
The actor’s attorneys are seeking to discredit Jolie’s claims that she refused to sell her share of Chateau Miraval to Pitt after she took issue with his proposed NDA
An aerial view of Chateau Miraval in Le Val, southeastern France, the winery and home that Brangelina bought for $27million
Pitt’s lawyers told LA Superior Court today that Jolie’s NDA objection was really just a cover story which she cooked-up to ‘rationalize’ her betrayal of Pitt.
The Fight Club stars attorneys also claim that she asked for Pitt to sign a broader NDA just six months later as part of their divorce settlement talks.
Part of their motion asks for Jolie to disclose any other NDA’s that she entered into with third parties – including her own personal staff.
The South of France chateau, where the couple wed in 2014, became Pitt’s ‘passion’ and one of the world’s most highly-regarded producers of rosé wine
They argue that it could ‘undermine her defense’ and is the latest twist in the so-called ‘War of the Rosés’ between the former Hollywood couple.
Pitt’s lawyers argue that disclosure of her NDAs will ultimately discredit Jolie’s arguments over why she abandoned the talks with her estranged husband.
Court documents state: ‘If Jolie conditioned her continued employment of an individual on that individual’s agreement to an NDA covering what they witnessed in her home—including her treatment of her children and Pitt—that would be highly probative of whether she truly believed the provision requested by Pitt was an ‘unconscionable gag order.’
‘The same is true with respect to any NDA between Jolie and any third party with whom she is in a relationship or who has assisted with the care of the couple’s children.
‘To the extent that Jolie requested this third party’s silence about her family or home life, particularly in a circumstance where there was no business justification, it would speak volumes about whether Jolie actually viewed Pitt’s requested NDA, which was linked to the Miraval business, as the deal-ender she subsequently alleged it to be.’
Pitt’s lawyers argue that disclosure of her NDAs will ultimately discredit Jolie’s arguments over why she abandoned the talks with her estranged husband
Pitt at Chateau Miraval during a launch of his skincare line, Le Domaine
Pitt states that he was blindsided when Jolie sold her share of Chateau Miraval, a 35-room estate and celebrated vineyard in the south of France that Pitt and Jolie bought for $60million in 2011. The 1,000-acre estate – now valued at $164million – is where the couple tied the knot in 2014
A letter from Jolie’s legal team dated April 2021 included her own draft non-disparagement agreement, along with a second from her US divorce lawyers six months after she pulled out of the sale which suggested an even broader NDA as part of their divorce.
Pitt’s filing adds: ‘The scope, terms, and subject matter covered by the NDAs that Jolie has signed or asked a third party to sign are probative of whether Jolie truly withdrew from the negotiations with Pitt because of the NDA he requested, as she asserts.
‘By way of example only, if Jolie has required others to sign NDAs that were at least as broad as the one she claims was so ‘unconscionable’ here, it would severely undermine her claimed excuse for terminating negotiations with Pitt and covertly negotiating with Stoli. Nor is the existence of these documents speculative.’
Jolie is accused of ‘adamant refusing’ to produce other NDAs that she signed or requested others to sign, and insists that they are not relevant.
It comes 24 hours after Jolie’s team filed new documents which claimed that Pitt was physically abusive to her before their 2016 row on a plane which led to their split.
Sources close to Pitt are accusing Jolie of making the filings to create ‘a smokescreen’ to distract from the issues central to the Chateau Miraval case.
Pitt was shocked when his ex-wife sold her half of their stunning Chateau Miraval estate without his agreement to Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler in 2021
Angelina and Vivienne have been working together on the project as the teen has been interested in theater. Also seen was Matt Dillon, who was one of the stars of the Francis Ford Coppola ‘s 1983 coming-of-age crime drama
Here Vivienne is seen center bottom with the cast and crew; mom Angelina is to the righ.
It’s about whether they had an agreement not sell their interests in the winery and family home without the other’s consent.
‘That’s what Brad and his team are focused on, and so far the legal momentum has been on their side.
‘The NDA Jolie was asked to sign is a standard business contract designed to protect the asset being sold – in this case her stake in Chateau Miraval.
‘It’s unclear why she finds this so unconscionable when her own lawyers suggested a mutually binding gagging clause as part of their divorce just a few months later.’
The arguments come after Pitt has landed several legal victories in the battle for the winery including a key judgement in Luxembourg which handed him back control of the award-winning vineyard pending further hearings.
Last month LA Superior court rejected the allegations that his suit was ‘frivolous, malicious, and part of a problematic pattern.’
