Katy Perry House Lawsuit: What Really Happened With the $15 Million Montecito Mansion

You’ve probably seen the headlines by now. Katy Perry, a $15 million mansion, and an elderly veteran locked in a courtroom battle that felt like it would never end. It’s the kind of story that makes people take sides instantly. On one hand, you have a global pop superstar and her partner, Orlando Bloom, looking for a family home. On the other, there's Carl Westcott, the 80-something founder of 1-800-Flowers, who claimed he was too medicated to know what he was signing.

The Katy Perry house lawsuit isn't just a celebrity real estate spat. Honestly, it’s a messy, five-year saga that touched on everything from mental capacity and Huntington’s disease to the "Pelaez-Perry Act," a piece of legislation sparked by this very case.

The $15 Million Handshake That Went South

It all started back in July 2020. Westcott had just bought the 9,285-square-foot Montecito estate for roughly $11 million. He wasn't even in the house for two months before Perry’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, came knocking with a $15 million offer.

Westcott signed. Then, a few days later, he wanted out.

His argument? He’d just had major back surgery. He was 80 years old. He was on heavy painkillers and suffering from Huntington’s disease. Basically, his legal team argued he was of "unsound mind" and didn't have the capacity to agree to such a massive transaction.

Perry didn't back down. Neither did Gudvi. They insisted the deal was airtight. They pointed to the fact that Westcott had actually rejected a lower offer from Maria Shriver just days before, proving he was lucid enough to negotiate for the best price.

👉 See also: Addison Rae and The Kid LAROI: What Really Happened

Winning the House but Losing the PR Battle?

In December 2023, a Los Angeles judge finally broke the stalemate. Judge Joseph Lipner ruled that there was "no persuasive evidence" Westcott lacked capacity. The judge noted that Westcott seemed "coherent, engaged, lucid and rational" during the negotiations.

Katy Perry officially took possession of the home in May 2024. But the legal fireworks didn't stop there.

While she got the keys, the public perception shifted. Westcott’s family, particularly his son Chart Westcott, became very vocal. They slammed the singer for having "zero empathy" for an ailing veteran. This led to the introduction of the "Protecting Elder Realty for Retirement Years" Act (or the PERRY Act) in the California legislature. It’s a proposed law that would create a 72-hour "cool-down" period for seniors over 75 selling their primary residence.

The Final Bill: Damages and Lost Rent

Just when it seemed like it was over, a second phase of the trial kicked off. Perry wanted more. She sued for nearly $5 million in damages, citing lost rental income and necessary repairs.

She argued that because the lawsuit dragged on for four years, she lost out on the money she could have made renting the place out. Critics found this move particularly aggressive given the circumstances, but from a business perspective, she was fighting for the "benefit of her bargain."

✨ Don't miss: Game of Thrones Actors: Where the Cast of Westeros Actually Ended Up

In late 2025 and early 2026, the court finally crunched the numbers:

• Initial Damage Request: Perry asked for roughly $4.8 million.
• The Rental Ruling: The judge agreed she was owed about $2.8 million for the 43 months the house sat empty.
• The Repairs: She was awarded $259,581 for maintenance and fixes.
• The Deductions: The judge took away about $1 million because Perry’s team had withheld a portion of the purchase price during the fight, allowing them to earn interest on that cash elsewhere.

The final result? On January 7, 2026, the court awarded Perry approximately $1.94 million.

This money won't be a check Westcott writes to her. Instead, it gets deducted from the remaining $6 million she and Orlando Bloom still owed him for the house. Since they’d already paid $9 million, they now only have to fork over about $4 million to close the book on the $15 million total.

Why This Case Actually Matters for You

It’s easy to dismiss this as "rich people problems," but the Katy Perry house lawsuit provides some pretty heavy lessons for anyone dealing with family estates or elderly parents.

First, mental capacity is incredibly hard to prove in court after the fact if the paperwork looks clean. If you have an aging relative selling property, having a doctor’s note or a witness who isn't the real estate agent can save years of heartache.

🔗 Read more: Is The Weeknd a Christian? The Truth Behind Abel’s Faith and Lyrics

Second, "cooling off" periods aren't standard in real estate. Once you sign that contract, you are usually bound to it, regardless of whether you have "seller's remorse" the next morning.

Moving Forward: What to Watch For

The Westcott family has hinted at appeals, but for now, the title belongs to the "Firework" singer. Interestingly, testimony revealed that the house is actually held in an LLC controlled by Orlando Bloom, though Perry described them as "family for life" and partners in the venture.

If you are navigating a complex real estate deal, take these steps:

1. Always use an attorney for transactions involving individuals over 75 or those with known health issues.
2. Document everything. Emails and texts from Westcott showing him negotiating the price were the smoking guns that won Perry the case.
3. Understand the "incapacity" threshold. Being on medication isn't enough to void a contract; you have to prove the person truly didn't understand the nature of what they were doing.

The saga of the Montecito mansion is a wrap for now, leaving behind a new California law and a very expensive lesson in the finality of a signature.

Actionable Insight: If you're concerned about a senior family member making a major financial decision, consider establishing a Power of Attorney (POA) or a trust structure before a sale is initiated. This creates a legal layer of protection that requires a second set of eyes on any contract, potentially preventing "sound mind" disputes before they reach a courtroom.