When divorce proceedings last five times as long as the marriage, we might wonder whether one or both of the parties isn’t ready to let go. This raises a significant irony: legal processes meant to finalize a dissolution can actually keep a couple entangled for as long as they find issues to contest.
In the geopolitical arena, nations are sometimes accused of fighting a "war of choice" rather than seeking a reasonable peace. This idea resonates in the ongoing, contentious legal battle between Hollywood A-listers Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Their divorce is technically settled, yet the disputes persist, leaving observers to question whether the wrangling is intentional.
In recent years, the term “lawfare” has been used to describe such strategies, with the added notion that “the process is the punishment.” As we examine the case dubbed The War of the Rosé, we discover a cautionary tale of prolonged disputes and interwoven interests that could have been untangled more easily if there had been mutual intent.
Is Life Imitating Art?
Before we discuss our real-world Hollywood litigants, we should revisit a fictional Hollywood tale of divorce. The War of the Roses (1989) starred Michael Douglass and Kathleen Turner as Mr. and Mrs. Rose, a couple who hated as passionately as they had loved. The dark comedy traded on Douglass and Turner’s chemistry in the hit action comedy Romancing the Stone (1984) and its sequel, The Jewel of the Nile (1985). Audiences were promised a Hepburn-Tracy farce of intramarital rivalry but got a relentlessly bitter tale of a union gone sour. The protracted divorce in the story literally killed both parties. Danny Devito directed the film and also plays a supporting role as a lawyer. He uses this tale of woe to discourage a younger couple from pursuing a scorched-earth divorce.
Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie might not recall this movie, but journalists covering their proceedings certainly do, setting the stage for media comparisons. Before analyzing the specifics of their case, we must acknowledge our limited knowledge of the principals’ personal motivations or thinking. However, our extensive experience with divorce proceedings gives us insight into actions that appear unlikely to hasten or reasonably conclude a case.
What’s $164 Million Between Friends?
At the heart of the current conflict is the contested ownership of Château Miraval, a 1,200-acre villa and winery in the South of France that the couple once jointly owned. After their separation, Ms. Jolie sold her remaining stake in 2021, an action Mr. Pitt claims violated their prior agreement granting him buyout rights. Rather than immediately detailing the resulting international dispute, it is helpful to first examine the full timeline, guided by the detailed reporting at elledecor.com, to better understand the unfolding conflict.
- 1970s–1990s — Chateau Miraval, a medieval estate in Provence, is modernized by owner Jacques Loussier, who sells to “American entrepreneur Tom Bove, who spearheaded a total restoration that included launching a successful organic wine business.” The “grounds contain around 100 acres of vineyards, … a Romanesque chapel … olive groves, and a moat.”
- 2008 — Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie, not yet married, sign “a long-term lease, with an option to buy, from owner Bove.”
- 2013 — Having bought the estate when their lease was up, the couple buys “a controlling stake” in the company operating the wine business, Quimicum. “The initial ownership structure divided the estate,” 60 percent for Mr. Pitt and 40 percent for Ms. Jolie. That deal was “revised in 2013 to be an even split.” Mr. Pitt sold his excess shares to Ms. Jolie “for the symbolic amount of one euro.” The couple proceeded to launch their Miraval Wine label with “immediate success,” selling out “6,000 bottles of rosé … in five hours.”
- 2014 — The couple marries “at Miraval’s small stone chapel on August 23, 2014.”
- 2016 — Ms. Jolie files for divorce from Mr. Pitt, citing “irreconcilable differences” after two years of marriage and a decade together. The divorce features “a bitter custody battle over their six children,” as well as litigation over real estate holdings.
- 2021 — Ms. Jolie sells her half of Miraval in July, after a California judge grants permission. The entire property is valued at roughly $164 million.
- 2022 — Mr. Pitt filed complaints in California and France in February “to try to reverse the sale,” claiming “the former couple had both a verbal and written agreement that neither would sell their stake without approval of the other.” Mr. Pitt later accuses Ms. Jolie of “purposely trying to sabotage the business.” Ms. Jolie counterclaims, accusing Mr. Pitt of “waging a ‘vindictive war’ against her and asking for $250 million in compulsory damages.” In a French court, a judge “sided with Pitt and ordered a raid on the property to retrieve documents related to the case.”
- 2024 — In February, “a court in Luxembourg … ruled that the … shares … Pitt symbolically sold Jolie for one euro in the 2013 sale were to be given to a court-appointed receiver.” This made Mr. Pitt the largest shareholder in Miraval. Then in November, “a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overruled Jolie’s three motions to dismiss the case,” which could now proceed to trial.
- 2025 — In October, lawyers for Mr. Pitt “filed a claim in the California case demanding Jolie hand over private emails … related to the sale.”
- 2026 — On May 5, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Cindy Pánuco ruled in favor of Ms. Jolie, who had refused to hand over emails she asserted were protected by attorney-client privilege. But “the judge denied Jolie’s request to sanction Pitt more than $33,000.”
The trial is scheduled for February 1, 2027, “though Jolie has sought to push it to November 2027.”
Playing the Long Game or Playing to Prolong the Game?
While it’s generally inadvisable for a party to divorce to compromise their property rights simply to end proceedings, it’s seldom reasonable to deliberately provoke an opponent, since antagonism is bound to draw out the conflict. In this case, we observe that Ms. Jolie sold her shares in Miraval to a “Russian oligarch,” Yuri Shefler, owner of SPI Group, an international beverage consortium that owns numerous brands, including Stolichnaya vodka. Mr. Pitt has described Miraval as a “passion project.” Certainly, a small craft winery with a French pedigree going back to the time of St. Thomas Aquinas is a unique enterprise. It’s not something we’d simply call a business asset or a real estate tract.
There might be extenuating circumstances to justify the sale, but on the surface, the transfer of this gem of Provence to a huge conglomerate that mass produces spirits for global consumption seems vindictive. It gives the impression of a deliberate attempt by one spouse to destroy an asset simply because the other spouse treasures it.
Certain comments by Ms. Jolie's attorneys seem to confirm this deduction. After the Los Angeles court ruling on the emails, Vanity Fair quoted Ms. Jolie’s attorney, Paul Murphy. He stated, "This is part of Mr. Pitt's pattern of demanding control over anything Angelina, including control over her communications with her own attorneys.” This suggests that Ms. Jolie harbors resentment toward what she perceives as controlling behavior. What better way to demonstrate she can’t be controlled than to sell a treasured business to a partner Mr. Pitt was sure to find odious?
Was the sale gratuitously nasty? Or did Mr. Pitt set himself up by dithering needlessly over the disposition of the property? We can’t answer that. We merely observe that a sale of the property to Mr. Pitt would not have presented such complications. Moreover, Ms. Jolie may have a logical reason for seeking a 10-month delay in the Miraval hearing. But she might also be looking to prolong the pain or simply forestall the inevitable.
In contentious divorces, parties sometimes prioritize inflicting emotional or financial harm, or delaying proceedings, over pursuing tangible legal goals. Such behavior sustains their connection and control through the legal process. Therefore, individuals entering marriage or contemplating divorce should be diligent with their legal preparations.
How Mr. Pitt Could Have Protected His Interests
The first piece of advice we might offer is: Don’t entangle your business and romantic interests. The old adage that “Friendships based on business are better than businesses based on friendship” works doubly for romantic partners. If you are going into business with a lover, you should anticipate that the romance might fade while the business remains viable. This means that one of you will have to exit the business. It is always best to decide on the terms of an exit before finalizing the deal.
Every partnership agreement should have an exit strategy, formalized in a buy-sell agreement. A sound agreement could have given Mr. Pitt an iron-clad right of first refusal of Ms. Jolie’s offer to sell, as well as the right to exclude other potential buyers, who would make inappropriate partners. (Likewise, Ms. Jolie could have protected her interest by including a firm deadline for Mr. Pitt to exercise his option to buy.) Mr. Pitt should also have had a written agreement that he could buy back the “one euro” shares he’d sold Ms. Jolie for the same symbolic price.
It seems unlikely that the couple executed a clear agreement, or Mr. Pitt could have simply brought that contract to court. Instead, he’s compelled to subpoena records in the hope of piecing together evidence that implies the existence of an oral agreement.
Another important tool is a prenuptial agreement. No matter how long a couple has been together, marriage changes the dynamic. It also changes legal realities, such as property rights. So, even if the couple had not executed a partnership agreement for Miraval prior to that purchase, they could have negotiated those terms prior to their marriage.
As divorce attorneys, we understand how people in love sometimes feel about prenups. But when the alternative might be four years of divorce litigation for every one year of marriage, we think the choice is clear. Complex divorces require strategic planning long before disputes reach the courtroom. To speak with our team about protecting your assets or a prenup, contact our team or call 212.682.6222.