Ten years. That is how long Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have been fighting in one form or another, through courts and tabloids and leaked documents and lawyers who bill by the hour and have done very well out of it. Their divorce was finalised in December 2024. The arguments were not.
Now, sources close to the couple say Jolie wants to 'put this whole thing to bed.' An insider cited byReality Teaclaimed 'ten years of fighting is long enough' and suggested 2026 could be the year they stop. Which would be nice. It would also be the fourth or fifth time someone close to the situation has said roughly the same thing, so take it with salt.
The problem is Château Miraval. It has been the problem for years and it is still the problem now.
Quick version, because the full timeline would take a thousand words on its own: Jolie and Pitt bought a vineyard in Provence while they were still together. Beautiful place. They got married there in 2014. When things fell apart, Jolie sold her stake to a unit of the Stoli Group in 2022. Pitt says she did it without his approval. That sale, and the fallout from it, has generated more court filings than some actual criminal cases.
The latest development is a judge ordering Jolie to hand over previously unseen emails and texts related to the sale. Court documents reviewed by sources suggest this material could answer questions about what Jolie knew, when she knew it, and whether the sale was conducted transparently. On paper, that is a win for Pitt's legal team. It gives them access to communications they have been trying to get for months.
Jolie's lawyers responded the way lawyers respond when they lose a motion: they said the order was unfair, argued it could violate legal privilege, and confirmed they would appeal. So the ruling stands for now, but whether Pitt ever sees those emails depends on what happens next. And 'what happens next' in this case has meant 'another year of filings' every time so far.
The winery disputes sound boring. Two rich people arguing over a vineyard in France. But this one has become a proxy for everything else: control, trust, who gets to tell the story. Pitt's position is that Jolie acted unilaterally and brought outsiders into a shared business without consent. Jolie's position is that she had every right to sell her stake and that Pitt's legal strategy is about leverage, not principle. Neither of them is going to say the other has a point. Not publicly. Probably not privately either.
The short answer is exhaustion.
Both of them have careers that require attention. Jolie has been doing awards-season press for her Maria Callas biopic. Pitt has producing deals, acting commitments, a whole F1 film coming. Six children between them, the youngest twins turning 18 this summer, which changes the custody arithmetic and (this is the bit that matters legally) removes some of the court's jurisdiction over their family arrangements.
Once the kids are adults, a fair chunk of what the courts have been managing simply stops being the courts' business. That creates space for a private settlement in a way that did not exist three years ago. Whether either of them is willing to take it is a different question, but the structural opportunity is there for the first time.
Source: International Business Times UK
