bitchy | Katy Perry testified in her long-running legal drama over a Montecito home

In the 2010s, Katy Perry was involved in a pretty significant real estate dispute over a former convent in Los Angeles. I won’t get into the years-long saga of it all, but the basic gist was that the LA archdiocese sold the property to Katy, much to the dismay of a couple of elderly nuns who lived in the convent and didn’t like Katy’s provocative music and vibe. One of the nuns literally collapsed and died in court during the lawsuit. Some believe those nuns put a curse on Katy. I sort of believe that, because Katy’s real estate woes continue to this day. Years ago, Katy and Orlando moved full time to Montecito, where Katy began investing in several properties. In 2020, she bought a $15 million home from Carl Westcott, who then tried to rescind the contract. So they’re in court still, and Katy testified in the years-long legal issue this week.

Katy Perry appeared in court to testify in the ongoing legal battle over the purchase of her $15 million mansion in Montecito, Calif. The singer appeared in Los Angeles court via Zoom on Tuesday, Aug. 26, and was questioned about the 2020 purchase of the California estate.

Perry, 40, and Orlando Bloom purchased the 1930s Montecito mansion from entrepreneur Carl Westcott for $15 million, according to court documents previously obtained by PEOPLE. However, Westcott — who was diagnosed with Huntington’s Disease, a genetic brain disorder, in 2015 — sought to rescind the contract after claiming he “lacked capacity” to sign the transaction. In the years since, Westcott, who is the founder of 1-800-Flowers, filed suit against Perry’s business manager Bernie Gudvi in August 2020.

After a years-long legal battle, Perry prevailed at a prior trial on the issue of liability, and in May 2024, Perry gained ownership of the Santa Barbara County property under the LLC DDoveB, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing property records. A judge ruled that “Westcott presented no persuasive evidence that he lacked capacity to enter into a real estate contract…” He also ruled that there was significant evidence to demonstrate Westcott knowingly signed the contract, noting he seemed to be “coherent, engaged, lucid, and rational.”

The judge has since bifurcated the case. The singer is now seeking more than $5 million in damages, alleging $3 million will cover her loss of rental income. On Tuesday, Westcott’s attorney, Andrew J. Thomas, questioned Perry about what she has to gain from the litigation.

“Justice,” she simply replied. But Thomas asked, “How about money?”

“I stand to lose money if it doesn’t work in my favor,” she said.

She was also asked if she has “a financial stake of any kind in the outcome of this lawsuit.” Perry confirmed she does, explaining that the financial stake for her, “could be lost money, lawyers’ fees, lost income for rental.”

[From People]

You guys know I’m loath to give Katy the benefit of the doubt on most things, but I’m actually fine with all of this? Katy has every right to sue this guy, and she entered into the contract in good faith. I don’t think it’s weird or bad for her to acknowledge that Carl Westcott tried to screw her over and break a legal contract, and that the years of legal wrangling cost her. Yes, she’s a millionaire and she doesn’t “need” the money, but it’s the principle of the thing. I honestly felt sorry for her with the nuns too – Katy believed she was purchasing that LA property in good faith as well.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.