Nearly a decade after Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie ended their relationship, more than seven years after a judge declared them legally single, and about 18 months after their divorce was finalized, the former couple remains locked in a legal dispute.
The newest courtroom battle is not directly about their marriage, which is now formally behind them. It is also not centered on custody, an issue that has largely been resolved. Instead, the dispute focuses on Château Miraval, the French estate and winery they once shared, and a long-running financial question that has continued to follow Jolie:
Was Angelina Jolie ever actually struggling for cash?
That question first gained major tabloid attention in late 2018, when a report alleged Jolie was “living paycheck to paycheck” and waiting for production on “Maleficent 2” to finish so she could receive the remainder of her reported $25 million Disney salary. Even then, the claim was difficult for many to believe. Jolie was among Hollywood’s most recognizable stars and had earned eight-figure paydays for years. How could an actress of her stature be facing that kind of financial pressure? And how did those old claims become relevant to Pitt’s current push to review her tax returns?
Château Miraval
To understand the latest turn, it helps to go back to the beginning.
In 2011, Pitt and Jolie purchased Château Miraval, a vineyard in France. Even for those unfamiliar with the estate itself, its wine may be recognizable: Miraval rosé is sold in wine shops, restaurants, supermarkets and upscale retailers around the world.
The property was far more than a picturesque celebrity retreat in the South of France. Spanning roughly 1,000 acres, it functioned as an estate, wedding location, wine brand and commercial enterprise. Pitt and Jolie married there in 2014. Château Miraval also has a notable musical legacy, having operated as a recording studio where artists including Pink Floyd, Sting and The Cranberries recorded before the Jolie-Pitt years.
Château Miraval (MICHEL GANGNE/AFP via Getty Images)
The Tax Return Fight
After the split, Miraval became one of the most valuable and emotionally charged assets in their divorce. Pitt says he poured years of work into turning the wine brand into a serious global business. He also says he and Jolie had an agreement that neither would sell their stake without the other’s approval.
Jolie saw things differently. In 2021, she sold her 50% stake in Miraval to Tenute del Mondo, the wine division of the Stoli Group, for a reported $64 million. Stoli is controlled by Russian-born billionaire Yuri Shefler. Pitt was furious. He sued in 2022, claiming Jolie had violated their agreement and intentionally sold her stake to an outside party he did not want as a business partner.
That sale is the heart of the case. And now it has led to a fight over Jolie’s tax returns.
According to recent court filings, Pitt’s lawyers are seeking documents showing Jolie’s income and profit-participation payments from 2017 through 2019. That period matters because it covers the years after their 2016 separation, Jolie’s purchase of a major Los Angeles home, and the lead-up to her eventual sale of her stake in Miraval.
Pitt’s side argues that Jolie has made her financial condition relevant by claiming she lacked meaningful economic alternatives and needed to sell her interest in Miraval to achieve financial independence. His lawyers argue that if Jolie had substantial income and other resources during that period, those records could directly undermine her claim that Pitt left her with no meaningful alternative but to sell her stake to Stoli.
$33 Million Maleficent Payday
Pitt’s team also pointed to Jolie’s Hollywood earning power. In their filing, they argued that Jolie was a globally recognized actress who had commanded extraordinary compensation for major studio work, including reported compensation of approximately $33 million for “Maleficent,” which made her the highest-paid actress in Hollywood that year.
Jolie’s side says that is a mischaracterization. Her attorneys argue she never claimed she was broke, never claimed she was unable to support herself, and never made general financial distress central to the case. In their telling, financial independence meant exactly that: untangling her finances from Pitt after the end of their marriage.
That is the core dispute. Pitt says her finances matter because she claimed she lacked meaningful economic alternatives. Jolie says Pitt is trying to turn a personal and legal need to separate from an ex-husband into a false claim that she said she was poor.
A judge has not yet ruled on whether Jolie must turn over the additional records.
Kevin Winter/Getty Images
Where Did The “Cash-Strapped” Claim Come From?
The “cash-strapped” story did not begin with a clear statement from Jolie that she was broke. It began with tabloid coverage in 2018, when reports claimed she was “living paycheck to paycheck” after taking a break from blockbuster acting to focus on directing, humanitarian work, and raising her children.
The argument was that Jolie’s directing projects were creatively meaningful but not enormous personal paydays. Acting in a major Disney franchise was the real money engine. According to that version of the story, “Maleficent 2” mattered because it represented Jolie’s first massive acting check in years.
The more grounded version was always about liquidity. A person can be extraordinarily wealthy and still have complicated cash-flow issues if their wealth is tied up in real estate, investments, trusts, shared assets, legal bills, and future studio payments. That does not make the person broke. It makes the person’s finances complicated.
And Jolie’s finances were unquestionably complicated after her split from Pitt.
The $8 Million House Loan
One of the most important facts from the divorce fight involved Jolie’s post-split home.
After separating from Pitt, Jolie purchased the historic Cecil B. DeMille estate in Los Feliz for roughly $25 million (she recently listed this mansion for $30 million). Court filings later revealed that Pitt loaned Jolie $8 million to help her buy the property. Pitt’s side also said he had paid more than $1.3 million in bills for Jolie and their six children.
Jolie’s side pushed back hard on the framing. Her lawyers argued that the $8 million was an interest-bearing loan, not child support, and that Pitt had not paid a fair share of the children’s ongoing expenses.
Still, the existence of that loan fed the public narrative that Jolie might have been under financial pressure. If one of the most famous women in Hollywood needed an $8 million loan from her ex to buy a house, people naturally wondered what was going on behind the scenes.
Again, that does not mean she was broke. But it did give the “cash-strapped” rumor something to latch onto.
Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images
The $80 Million Divorce-Era Money Trail
The irony is that, by the time Pitt and Jolie finally settled their divorce in late 2024, Jolie had been tied to a series of very large post-split transactions.
In January 2025, reports claimed Jolie was roughly $80 million richer from divorce-era asset moves. That number should not be understood as Brad writing Angelina an $80 million settlement check. It appears to come mostly from two major sales.
First, Jolie sold a Winston Churchill painting that Pitt had given her as a gift. The painting, “Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque,” sold at Christie’s in 2021 for $11.5 million.
Second, and far more importantly, Jolie sold her 50% stake in Château Miraval to Tenute del Mondo, the wine division of the Stoli Group, for a reported $64 million.
That Miraval sale is the reason Pitt and Jolie are still in court.
Why Château Miraval Is Still A Problem
Pitt and Jolie bought Château Miraval when they were still together. It was not just a vacation home. It was a French estate, a winery, a brand, and, at least according to Pitt’s side, a family legacy they intended to pass down to their children.
Pitt claims he spent years building Miraval into a valuable wine business. He also claims he and Jolie had an agreement that neither would sell their interest without the other’s approval.
Jolie denies that she needed Pitt’s permission. Her side has argued that selling her stake was part of separating herself financially from him after years of litigation and personal turmoil.
That is why the tax returns matter to Pitt. His lawyers want to test whether Jolie truly lacked meaningful economic alternatives or whether she had plenty of resources and chose to sell Miraval for other reasons. Jolie’s lawyers say that is not a fair reading of her position. They say she wanted independence from Pitt, not rescue from poverty.
