+

PITT OPPOSES JOLIE’S PLAN TO SELL CHÂTEAU MIRAVAL

MUMBAI: As Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s next court hearing amid a heated custody battle for their children is set for July 9, there’s the other bone of contention in finalising their divorce that Angie wants to be sorted! According to US Weekly, Angelina wants to sell Brangelina’s French castle and winery, Château Miraval. However, […]

MUMBAI: As Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s next court hearing amid a heated custody battle for their children is set for July 9, there’s the other bone of contention in finalising their divorce that Angie wants to be sorted! According to US Weekly, Angelina wants to sell Brangelina’s French castle and winery, Château Miraval. However, Jolie claims that Pitt is trying to prevent her. The Eternals star filed a petition asking a judge for the removal of the ATRO on her divorce from the Bullet Train star. ATRO is a common order preventing either party from making any financial decision that would hurt the other throughout the divorce proceedings. Angelina’s lawyer claimed that the 46-year-old actress cannot finalise the winery’s sale despite finding a third-party buyer for Nouvel, LLC, Brangelina’s French winery company.

The reason being the 57-year-old actor not yet consenting to lift the ATRO. It’s to be noted that Jolie won’t be able to sell the winery unless a judge agrees to her request, i.e. to lift the ATRO. Written in the declaration filed by Angie’s attorney: “After all these years of trying to extricate herself from being business partners with her ex-husband on acceptable financial terms, Ms. Jolie is extremely desirous of closing the pending agreement for the sale of Nouvel, LLC, and requests that the Court issue an order lifting the ATROs and specifying that they shall not apply to Ms. Jolie’s sale of Nouvel, LLC.”

Angelina had previously filed an emergency application to remove the ATRO as a precaution so that the third-party buyer wouldn’t have time to back out of the sale. However, the judge rules that Jolie’s legal team hasn’t been able to prove that there was “immediate danger/irreparable harm or immediate loss to property.” 

Tags: