Troubles do not seem to be ending for Amber Heard anytime soon. The Aquaman actress has reportedly sold her Yucca Valley home in California for $1.05 million.
As per the reports, Heard allegedly bought the six-acre property in 2019 through an anonymous trust tied to her for $570,000. Built in 2015, the 3-bedroom home is situated about 10 miles west of Joshua Tree National Park and is more than 2,400 square feet. ALSO READ | Amber Heard’s $15m Book Deal Reports Go Viral, Internet Speculates Book To Be Titled - 'HOW TO POOP IN A BED?’
As per the TMZ reports, the desert hideaway was her primary residence for several years, its ownership was secretly changed via 'Heard’s people' on 18 July and was never publicly listed for sale.
Meanwhile, The Dirt report, suggests that the records show that the buyers of the abode are a married couple who have no connection to Amber Heard nor any ties to the entertainment industry. After the sale of her Mojave Desert crib, Amber Heard has reportedly walked away with a $480,000 profit, which is likely to cover the compensatory and punitive damages she owes to her ex-husband Jhonny Depp after their defamation lawsuit earlier this summer.
The latest landmark development comes after the Pirates of the Caribbean star was awarded $15 million in damages over domestic abuse claims made by Heard in a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post, which the jury agreed defamed him.
This was capped at $10.35 million by the judge, and in a separate verdict, Heard was awarded $2 million in damages via a counterclaim, which leave her owing the actor $8.3 million, reported the UNLAID.
Shortly after the same, Heard went on to file for a new trial and cited 'inconsistent verdicts' and mistaken identity after one juror's date of birth didn't match the one that was given on court documents and in publicly available information. ALSO READ | Johnny Depp Donates $800,000 To Charities; Including The One Amber Heard Had Pledged-DETAILS BELOW!
However, in response, Johnny Depp’s legal team said lawyers for Heard “had more than enough time” to investigate the jurors, and that the individual who ended up on the jury when another had been summoned was still 'qualified to serve as a juror'.
They also argued that the request for a mistrial came on 8 July, seven days after the court-appointed deadline to dispute the verdict.
Image Source: Twitter