Jennifer Aniston’s new relationship with Jim Curtis has brought renewed attention to his financial history. The life coach recently listed his New York City apartment for $1.5 million, shortly after resolving a $29,538 financial lien placed on the property in March 2024. This comes after previous issues with unpaid homeowner association (HOA) fees dating back to 2017, when Curtis accumulated over $15,000 in outstanding dues.
History of Financial Issues
The recent listing follows a pattern of financial difficulties for Curtis. He initially missed HOA payments in 2017, eventually settling the debt by April of that year. However, similar problems resurfaced in 2024, leading to another lien that was just cleared in December. The timing of the apartment sale raises questions about whether Curtis is capitalizing on his relationship with Aniston to improve his financial standing.
The Property and Potential Profit
The 1,200-square-foot condo includes two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and views of the Brooklyn Bridge. If sold at the listing price, Curtis stands to make a $250,000 profit. This potential gain has led some in Aniston’s circle to suggest he is leveraging their relationship for personal gain.
Rising Profile and Media Exposure
Since dating Aniston, Curtis’ social media following has grown significantly. He secured a spot on Today in January to promote his book, The Book of Possibility, where he discussed his relationship with the actress. He claims they were introduced through mutual friends and have been together for nearly a year.
Concerns About Exploitation
An unnamed source told Rob Shuter’s Naughty But Nice Substack that Curtis is “sweet but savvy,” implying he intentionally uses his relationship with Aniston to boost his career and public image. The timing of the apartment sale and his increased media presence suggests a calculated effort to benefit from the association.
The financial issues and subsequent property listing highlight how personal relationships can intersect with business opportunities, particularly when one partner has significant public influence. This case raises questions about transparency and whether Curtis is deliberately capitalizing on his connection with Aniston for financial gain.
