Angelina Jolie: Brad Pitt’s lawsuit is ‘frivolous, malicious & part of a problematic pattern’

It’s not that I want Angelina Jolie to take Brad Pitt to the cleaners, I want Jolie to take him to the woodshed and make him cry. I want her to take all of his money and force him out of Miraval too. Earlier this year, Pitt sued Angelina over the sale of her half (Nouvel) of the Chateau Miraval property and business. She sold Nouvel last year and he took her to court over it at the time, and now he’s taking her to court again. Except Jolie has all of the receipts, and her cross-complaint was one of the best “f–k around and find out” moments of the year. In the cross-complaint, she detailed at length Pitt’s violence towards her and the children, as well as all of the legal and financial paperwork that went into her Nouvel sale, including the fact that she and Pitt negotiated for months and he tried to add a gag order to the sale. Now Jolie has filed a case-management statement as part of the ongoing civil case:

Angelina Jolie thinks ex Brad Pitt’s lawsuit over the winery they previously owned is “part of a problematic pattern.” On Thursday, Jolie, 47, filed her case management statement after making a cross-complaint in October against Pitt, 58, who sued her in June for selling her interest in Château Miraval, the South of France vineyard and home they bought back in 2008. Pitt said they had agreed to never sell their respective interests in the family business without the other’s consent, an alleged agreement Jolie denies ever making.

“Ms. Jolie contends that Plaintiffs’ causes of action are frivolous, malicious and part of a problematic pattern, and she has filed a Cross-Complaint for declaratory relief seeking confirmation of her related rights,” read the new court filing.

“In particular, Plaintiff Pitt’s allegations that he and Ms. Jolie had a secret, unwritten, unspoken contract to a consent right on the sale of their interests in the property is directly contrary to the written record and, among other legal defects, violative of the Statute of Frauds and public policy,” Jolie’s team added.

Jolie requested a jury trial lasting 10 to 15 days. She also agreed to participate in a settlement conference or mediation session as a form of alternative dispute resolution. The document added that the court ordered both sides to “meet and confer over a unified discovery schedule” but they “have been unable to reach any agreement on such a schedule.”

In his case management statement from Nov. 23, Pitt accused Jolie of “refusing to produce any documents whatsoever in light of the pendency of her demurrer” and “trying to shield even the agreements concerning the purported sale at the heart of this dispute.” He also said he’s willing to do mediation or a settlement conference.

[From People]

Yeah, from what I understand of this legalese, Jolie is saying that not only is Pitt’s lawsuit a nuisance, it also constitutes fraud because he clearly lied (in court documents) about having a “secret, unwritten, unspoken contract” with Jolie. As I said, I hope she takes him to the woodshed. He’s been financially abusing her this whole time and using the courts to hurt her. Of course he wants to settle this thing in mediation – if they come to a settlement, his crisis managers will go out and declare victory and smear her all over again. Jolie’s right, this should go to trial.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

29 Responses to “Angelina Jolie: Brad Pitt’s lawsuit is ‘frivolous, malicious & part of a problematic pattern’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sunny says:

    Statute of frauds requires certain contracts be in writing- things like real estate, goods over I think $500, etc. Both parties noting they’ll agree to participate in mediation / ADR is a formality. Most of this seems like standard legal wrangling. I’ll be interested to see if we get Pitts response to her FAFO email (which was surely edited and reviewed by her legal team in anticipation of litigation)

  2. ArtHistorian says:

    Part of a problematic pattern = abuse.

    • Christina says:

      Maybe she will make him a vexatious litigant. My ex came so hard, constantly filing frivolous lawsuits after I obtained a DVRO, that I was able to prove it and he can’t sue anybody in the state anymore. If Pitt keeps coming after Jolie with lawsuits where he is continually trying to get her to shut up about what happened on the plane, she will have evidence. He needs to lose 4 times in California about trying to relitigtate his BS. Establishing a pattern is part of the process.

      Sink him, Angie.

  3. ariel says:

    I know it should not shock me that Pitt has faced zero professional consequences for drunkenly abusing and terrorizing his wife and their six children for hours in what was basically a hostage situation on a flight over the Atlantic ocean.
    But it is depressing that he is so insulated, protected, and makes so much money for the studios, etc., that the press pretends this never happened.
    Especially as this financial abuse of Jolie has been ongoing since that incident.

    Perhaps one of those kids will write a book one day.

  4. Raq says:

    1: he thinks she’s stupid. He really thinks she is stupid. That much has been obvious from the start. You cannot claim a verbal contract, especially when the other side has evidence that not even a verbal contract existed. He thinks he can say something and the courts will believe it. No they require actual evidence which he clearly doesn’t have. We know if he had any proof of her wrongdoing he’d leak it to tmz immediately.

    2: I think he’ll back out of a trial before it comes to that. She obviously is prepared to take down- HARD- plus who else will be involved (kids). He wouldn’t want that.

    3: I do hope he loses Miraval completely and I believe that’s what it will end in. By the way, that place in deep in debt but he isn’t using any of the money he makes to clear it. No, he uses it (he uses HER MONEY) for frivolous projects like million dollar pools and staircases- that get red built over and over again.

    4: he has lost every appeal, case, lawsuit so far.. every single time. He won’t win this either.

    By the way she has responded, I don’t think she’s worried at all about this. No, it’s more how this is weighing on her children. That’s what I’ve gotten from her always. She’s prepared to fight for however long it takes and I believe she’ll win. I believe stoli will win. He is going to lose and I hope it’s a beating that he can’t come back from.

    • Coco says:

      Facts to all of your points .

    • Ivy says:

      I think he will back out too. He only showed pieces of her letter and omitted details about their orginal because he didn’t think she would go against him with proof.

  5. equality says:

    How do you have an “unwritten, unspoken” agreement? Communicate telepathically?

    • ThatsNotOkay says:

      It was a look. She had a look in her eyes and he knew, he just KNEW it meant she loved him so much she would never, ever sell the property without his express consent…in writing.

      His attorneys are either incredibly dumb or evil geniuses for filling his head with the idea he has any chance of winning, meanwhile THEY’RE the ones taking him to the cleaners.

      • ML says:

        Well said, ThatsNotOkay! I really hope that while he’s looking at Angie “knowing” what goes on in her mind unsaid, that he truly winds up paying. Lawsuits with famous abusers make me nervous—even though AJ has won everything up to now, it feels like she’s still trying to swim through molasses to reach her goals. Margot Robbie is apparently helping or attempting to help BP by saying she wanted to kiss him while filming (blegh), and he still has such power, influence and support.

    • ecsmom says:

      I know!! right?? I had the same thought. All I can think of is unspoken means they pinky sweared and never told another soul.

    • G says:

      To a narcissist, them thinking a thought constitutes all parties being in agreement, since they are the center of the world, the only one with thoughts, the only one with preferences, the only one that matters.

      • etso says:


      • Ivy says:

        Exactly G. A good example of this is him questioning why Angelina is helping the new partners in the lawsuit. It’s a ridiculous thought isn’t it? Shows just how differently their minds perceive things

  6. Aimee says:

    I worry a jury would be sympathetic to him a la Depp vs Heard.

    • JP says:

      He certainly has had agencies working for him to present her as unreasonable, litigious, and mentally unstable. I don’t think this will end up being the shit show as the Depp / Heard trial because it’s a clear cut business transaction (despite what Pitt’s legal team has argued). It will be harder to make this into a court of popular opinion.

    • goofpuff says:

      Yes. So many people are willing to excuse abusers and support them because “they make good movies” or “good music” or “good art” or ‘books” what have you.

  7. JW says:

    Do you go to bars and accuse everyone who orders Stoli of being a Putin plant too?

  8. Porsche says:

    Is this dude for real??? An unwritten, unspoken deal. Well then I have a unwritten, unspoken deal with all the billionaires in the world that they are signing all their money and assets over to me tomorrow.

  9. Kim says:

    She’s such a badass.

    However when I read these things, I can’t help think about the women who didn’t have her resources. Money = power in our society. And too often at the end of a relationship, women are left powerless.

  10. Ivy says:

    I an sure they had an unspoken “understanding” that he wouldn’t go behind her back and cut her out the business. I see he wasn’t expecting her to keep any evidence. Good for her

  11. Monika says:

    Entertainment industry workers will say anything to keep that Pitt money coming in and not to mention the paid PR he has. He’s got the backing of CAA to keep him protected. You clearly believe all the BS they say about him. Parental Alienation is a made up defense tactic for abusers and is NOT recognized by American Psychiatric Association, WHO,or American Medical Association. The FBI had probable cause against him but the DA got that thrown out. I believe once she gets the full report from the FBI she’ll learn why.

  12. Lola says:

    That’s not what the Statute of Frauds means at all, despite the name. She’s not saying Pitt’s claim is fraudulent. All these foundational common law legal doctrines are hundreds of years old and some of them have odd or counterintuitive names. The Statute of Frauds is just a rule that certain types of contracts must be in writing. Generally, under the common law (basis of the legal system in the UK and former British colonies including the USA), a spoken contract is just as valid as a written one in many cases. However, if it’s the type of contract listed in the SoF, it must be in writing. The SoF lists a few very specific types of contracts, and one of them is contracts regarding the sale of land. That’s all Jolie’s attorneys meant when they said Pitt’s argument about an “unwritten” contract violated the statute of frauds. They simply meant it violated this doctrine because under the doctrine, a real estate contract must be in writing.

    • Coco says:

      Actually if you read the other Document and post on there she would know there was never any verbal agreement either.

      • Ivy says:

        Right, he arguing that there was an understanding. That’s why her lawyer referred to it as a secret contract. It was never spoken about.