Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's Winery Battle Heats Up as A-List Exes Remain Locked in Bitter Never-Ending Legal Dispute

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s long-running legal fight over their French winery is entering a new phase, where timing may be just as critical as the facts themselves.

Nearly a decade after their split, the former Hollywood power couple remains locked in a bitter dispute over Château Miraval, the vineyard they once shared and where they married in 2014. Now, as a 2027 trial looms, both sides are clashing over whether the case should be delayed, raising the stakes in an already deeply personal battle.

Miraval has long been more than just a business asset. Pitt and Jolie first became attached to the estate in 2008, later purchasing a controlling stake and transforming it into a successful wine brand. The venture quickly gained traction, with early rosé releases selling out within hours.

After their divorce proceedings began in 2016, the property became a focal point of conflict. In 2021, a California judge allowed Jolie to sell her 50% stake to a subsidiary of the Stoli Group, a move Pitt claims violated an agreement that neither would sell without the other’s consent. Jolie has disputed that claim, countering with allegations that Pitt attempted to control and misuse the business.

The legal fight that followed has since expanded across countries, with both sides filing competing claims and seeking significant damages.

The latest flashpoint centers on Jolie’s request to delay the trial by nine months, pushing it to late 2027. Pitt’s legal team has pushed back strongly, arguing that the delay could jeopardize key evidence.

According to court filings, one important witness — Jolie’s former business manager — has already died, while another potential witness may be too ill to testify. Pitt’s team claims that further delays risk losing additional testimony and undermining the case.

“Disputes over the date of a high-profile trial are rarely about the calendar,” says entertainment attorney Sophia Sofferman, founding partner of NTSS Law PLLC, who is not involved in the case.

“Delaying a trial date can be strategic, giving a party additional time to strengthen its case, reshape its narrative, or increase settlement pressure,” she explains, “while the opposing side may push to keep the schedule to maintain momentum and control costs.”

Sofferman explains that judges weigh several factors when considering such requests, including diligence, availability of witnesses, and whether a delay would unfairly harm the opposing side.​​

For Pitt, maintaining momentum may be key, particularly as concerns about fading evidence grow. For Jolie, additional time could offer opportunities to refine arguments or manage the broader narrative surrounding the dispute.

“In high profile cases,” she says, “timing is not just a matter of procedure, but a critical strategic factor.