Pitt and Jolie got married at the posh abode back in 2014 in a super-secret ceremony only attended by their six children
The complaint, which was filed on Tuesday in Luxembourg, accuses the “Maleficent” star, 46, of attempting to offload her 50% share in the 1,000-acre, $164 million Chateau Miraval in Correns, France without allegedly allowing Pitt, 57, the first option to buy her out.
The sprawling property is owned by separate limited liability corporations that both parties control, according to the court papers, which state that Miraval is owned by Quimicum – a company Pitt originally held a 60% stake through his company Mondo Bongo. Meanwhile, while Jolie held 40% through her company Nouvel.
“It is worth mentioning that, for the last four years, Nouvel [Jolie’s company] did not act in the best interest of Quimicum by systematically delaying the approval of the annual accounts and the renewal of the manager,” the suit states.
“We understand that behind this systematic obstruction, the real purpose of Nouvel and its shareholder [Jolie] is to sell its stake in Chateau Miraval SA in a way that would circumvent Mondo Bongo’s right of first refusal (as provided in Quimicum’s articles of approval), taking, as a result, a capital gain raised thanks to Mondo Bongo’s investment and to which Nouvel did not contribute.”
Pitt and Jolie got married at the posh abode back in 2014 in a super-secret ceremony only attended by their six children. The documents reveal that three years before they got the ball rolling on their years-long divorce proceedings, Pitt transferred 10% of his share over to Jolie in a move that made them both 50/50 co-owners in the nine-figure landmark.
Sources relayed to Fox News on Tuesday that Jolie’s alleged dealing with the property is the actress’ attempt to move the goalposts and avoid her obligations to Pitt as the parties supposedly agreed to give the other the option to purchase the estate outright should one of them decide they wanted out of the arrangement.
Meanwhile, Jolie’s camp is pointing the finger at Pitt for allegedly using his celebrity in a bid to garner sympathy in the ongoing custody battle of the exes.
“This sort of gamesmanship, a last-ditch effort by a celebrity litigant seeking special treatment, is not what this Court’s limited review resources are for,” Jolie’s attorneys told Page Six on Tuesday.
“There is nothing to see or review here. There is no issue meeting this Court’s rigorous standards for, or worthy of, review,” her counsel added.
Jolie filed for divorce in August 2016 citing “irreconcilable differences” and requesting primary custody of five of their six children: Pax, 17, Zahara, 16, Shiloh, 15 and twins Vivienne and Knox, 13. The former pair’s son Maddox is now 20.
Earlier this month, Pitt filed for review in their custody battle after Jolie scored a win with the disqualification of a private judge who was overseeing their case.
In a statement to Fox News at the time, Pitt’s attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said: “We are seeking review in the California Supreme Court because the temporary judge, who had been appointed and repeatedly renewed by both sides, was improperly disqualified after providing a detailed, fact-based custodial decision, following a lengthy legal process with multiple witnesses and experts.
“The lower court’s ruling will reward parties who are losing child custody cases, and condone their gamesmanship, by allowing them to wait and see about the likely direction of the case before seeking the disqualification of the judge. Condoning the use of this type of strategic ‘lie in wait’ disqualification challenge will cause irreparable harm to both the children and families involved in this case, and other families in other cases, by unnecessarily prolonging the resolution of these disputes in an already overburdened court system. Allowing this kind of crafty litigation strategy will deprive parents of irreplaceable time with their children as judges are disqualified for minor reasons in the midst of their cases.
“The lower court’s ruling is bad for children and bad for California’s overburdened judicial system,” Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP concluded.
Lawyers for Jolie did not immediately return Fox News’ request for comment but in a statement at the time, the actress’ attorney, Robert A. Olson, told Entertainment Tonight: “The Court of Appeal unanimously refused to tolerate the ethical violations of the private judge who had heard custody matters, and correctly vacated that judge’s orders.
“Mr. Pitt’s counsel’s petition to the California Supreme Court displays how they are clinging to this private judge who exhibited bias and refused statutorily required evidence. It is disturbing that in full knowledge of unethical behavior, and having previously failed to disclose their new and ongoing financial relationships with him, Mr. Pitt’s counsel would seek to reinstate the private judge.
“Ms. Jolie hopes Mr. Pitt will instead join with her in focusing on the children’s needs, voices, and healing,” the statement concluded.
Reps for Jolie did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
Fox News’ Melissa Roberto contributed to this report.
Credit: Source link