Brad Pitt filed an opposition on April 7, 2026 to block Angelina Jolie's request to delay their $164 million Château Miraval winery trial from February 2027 to November 2027, arguing in court filings reported by TMZ that key witnesses are already dying or too ill to testify. For California spouses, the fight highlights how delay can permanently destroy community property claims under Cal. Fam. Code § 1102.
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | Pitt opposed Jolie's motion to continue the Miraval trial by approximately 9 months |
| When | Opposition filed April 7, 2026 (trial currently set February 2027) |
| Where | Los Angeles Superior Court, California |
| Who's affected | Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Russian oligarch Yuri Shefler (buyer of Jolie's stake) |
| Key statute/rule | Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.260 (deposition preservation); Cal. Evid. Code § 240 (unavailable witnesses) |
| Amount at stake | $164 million (value of disputed Miraval winery stake) |
| Impact | Former business manager Terry Bird has died; transactional attorney Laurent Schummer is reportedly too ill to testify |
Why This Matters Legally
Trial delays in high-asset California divorces permanently damage the record when key witnesses die or become incapacitated. Pitt's filing identifies two specific witnesses California courts can no longer hear from live: Terry Bird, Jolie's former business manager who has died, and Laurent Schummer, her transactional attorney who is reportedly too ill to testify. Under Cal. Evid. Code § 240, a witness is legally "unavailable" when deceased or physically unable to testify, which triggers hearsay exceptions but substantially weakens the evidentiary value of their prior statements.
California courts treat delay-caused evidence loss as cognizable prejudice. The California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c) lists "unavailability of a party, witness, or counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances" among the circumstances that may justify — or defeat — a continuance. When a party opposing a continuance shows witnesses are dying in real time, trial courts typically scrutinize the requesting party's diligence. That framework is why Pitt's filing emphasizes the specific medical status of Schummer and the death of Bird rather than general inconvenience.
The underlying dispute centers on whether Jolie's 2021 sale of her Miraval stake to Russian oligarch Yuri Shefler violated a mutual-consent agreement between Pitt and Jolie. California community property law generally requires both spouses to consent before one unilaterally transfers an interest in community real property under Cal. Fam. Code § 1102, and imposes ongoing fiduciary duties between spouses through Cal. Fam. Code § 721.
How California Law Handles This
California Family Code creates a 50/50 equal-division presumption for community property acquired during marriage under Cal. Fam. Code § 760 and Cal. Fam. Code § 2550. When spouses purchase a business together during marriage — as Pitt and Jolie did when they acquired Miraval in 2008 — the business typically qualifies as community property regardless of which spouse's name appears on operational documents.
Cal. Fam. Code § 1102 requires both spouses to join in executing any instrument that conveys or encumbers community real property. A transfer made by only one spouse is voidable by the non-consenting spouse, generally within one year of the transfer if the property interest was sold to a third party. If Pitt proves Jolie transferred her Miraval interest without his required consent, California courts have authority to void the sale or order monetary damages equal to his share of the transferred value.
Spouses also owe each other fiduciary duties equivalent to business partners under Cal. Fam. Code § 721, which applies to management of community assets throughout divorce. Disclosure obligations continue under Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, which requires each spouse to serve a preliminary declaration of disclosure identifying all assets and liabilities. A spouse who breaches these duties can face sanctions including 50% or 100% of the undisclosed asset's value under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101.
For evidence preservation, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.260 allows a party to take a deposition of a witness whose testimony may be lost, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2035.010 authorizes pre-litigation discovery to perpetuate testimony. Counsel representing parties with elderly or ill witnesses should invoke these provisions early.
Practical Takeaways for California Spouses
-
Preserve witness testimony early. If a material witness — your spouse's business manager, accountant, or attorney — is elderly or seriously ill, request a perpetuation deposition under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.260 immediately rather than waiting for trial.
-
Document your consent history. If your spouse manages a business, real estate, or investment account, keep written records of every transaction you approved — and more importantly, every transaction you did not approve. Emails, texts, and signed resolutions become critical under Cal. Fam. Code § 1102.
-
File for a temporary restraining order (ATROs) at filing. California automatically issues Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders when a divorce petition is filed under Cal. Fam. Code § 2040, freezing transfers of community property pending the case.
-
Demand a preliminary declaration of disclosure promptly. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, your spouse must serve a comprehensive asset schedule within 60 days of filing. Missed deadlines are sanctionable.
-
Track each delay's cost. If your spouse seeks continuances, document what evidence degrades with each delay — failing memories, retiring witnesses, destroyed records — to oppose future extensions.
-
Retain a forensic accountant for closely-held businesses. Valuation of winery, restaurant, or entertainment assets frequently requires expert analysis; a Goodwill valuation under In re Marriage of Foster (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 577 is fact-intensive and benefits from early expert engagement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does California require both spouses to consent before selling a marital business?
Yes. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 1102, both spouses must join in any conveyance of community real property, and Cal. Fam. Code § 1100 governs personal property transfers. A spouse who sells community property without the other's consent faces claims for voiding the sale or for 50% to 100% of the asset's value under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101.
How long can a California divorce trial be delayed?
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332 governs continuances, which courts grant only on "affirmative showing of good cause." Typical delays range from 30 to 180 days. Longer continuances, like the approximately 9-month delay Jolie seeks from February 2027 to November 2027, require specific justification such as witness availability, discovery needs, or exceptional circumstances.
What happens if a key divorce witness dies before trial?
Under Cal. Evid. Code § 240, a deceased witness is legally "unavailable," allowing prior sworn statements (depositions, affidavits) to be admitted under hearsay exceptions in Cal. Evid. Code § 1291. Without prior recorded testimony, the witness's knowledge is generally lost, which is why perpetuation depositions under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.260 are critical.
Can California community property include a foreign business like a French winery?
Yes. California applies community property rules to assets acquired during marriage regardless of location under Cal. Fam. Code § 760. A French winery purchased with community funds during marriage generally qualifies as community property, though enforcement abroad may require coordination with French courts and recognition proceedings under international comity principles.
What is a fiduciary duty between divorcing California spouses?
Under Cal. Fam. Code § 721, spouses owe each other the highest duty of good faith and fair dealing — equivalent to non-marital business partners. This duty continues through divorce and applies to all community property management decisions. Breach allows recovery of attorney fees and up to 100% of the undisclosed or mismanaged asset under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101.
Final Thoughts
High-asset California divorces routinely stretch across multiple years, and the Pitt-Jolie case is a visible reminder that time itself is an asset — or a liability. Witnesses age, memories fade, and documents get destroyed in routine business turnover. Whether you have $164 million or $164,000 in community property at stake, the California statutes governing consent, disclosure, and evidence preservation work the same way.
If you are navigating a California divorce involving a business, real estate, or investment assets that may have been transferred without your consent, work with a California family law attorney who can move quickly on discovery and preservation orders.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.