Katy Perry fought for a Montecito mansion in court. The verdict is in, and she likes it

Katy Perry wears a mauve dress while standing with Orlando Bloom, clad in a navy suit
An older man had sued Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom, alleging he wasn’t in his right mind when he agreed to sell them his Montecito home.
(Chris Pizzello / Invision / Associated Press)

The verdict is in! Katy Perry’s legal battle over that $15-million Montecito mansion has concluded.

The “Teenage Dream” hitmaker purchased the mansion for herself and fiancé Orlando Bloom in July 2020 from the founder of 1-800-Flowers. But the entrepreneur tried to call off the sale, alleging he was mentally incapacitated at the time of the agreement due to pain pills.

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge tentatively ruled that Carl Westcott, 84, had not met his burden of proving he was mentally unfit.


“Wescott presented no persuasive evidence that he lacked capacity to enter into a real estate contract between June 10, 2020, and June 18, 2020, the days during which he negotiated and signed the contract,” the judgment read.

The judge said evidence presented by Wescott’s team was not credible or persuasive. The court actually found significant evidence that demonstrated Wescott was well enough to knowingly sign on the dotted line. The evidence included the testimony of a witness who interacted with Westcott while he negotiated and finalized the contract as well as Westcott’s written communications during the same time frame that the court said showed the entrepreneur to be “coherent, engaged, lucid, and rational.”

Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom agreed to buy a house. A man who says he was of ‘unsound mind’ on narcotics when he sold it is suing their business manager.

Aug. 11, 2023

Westcott’s medical reports showed that none of his doctors found he lacked capacity to engage in any action before the sales contract or for more than a year afterward. According to the court documents, the contract that Westcott negotiated and signed yielded him a $3.75-million profit. He also had entered into other contracts shortly before and shortly after the real estate agreement with Perry and had not attempted to rescind any of those due to lack of capacity.

“Today’s proposed decision is clear — the judge found that Mr. Westcott could not prove anything other than he was of perfectly sound mind when he engaged in complex negotiations over several weeks with multiple parties to transact a lucrative sale of the property that netted him a substantial profit,” Perry’s attorney, Eric Rowen, said in a statement to People.

“The evidence shows that Mr. Westcott breached the contract for no other reason than he had changed his mind,” said Rowen. “We look forward to wrapping this matter up at the scheduled damage trial phase set for February 13 and 14, if not before.”

Westcott filed a lawsuit against the couple’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, in August 2020, alleging he was heavily medicated and not of sound mind when he contracted with Perry for the $15-million sale. Shortly after the contract was signed, Westcott and his lawyers alleged that he was unable to properly review the contract because he had been on “several intoxicating pain-killing opiates” at the time.


Westcott said in his lawsuit that he had a six-hour back surgery several days before being presented with the proposed real estate contract and had been prescribed powerful medications that left him “intoxicated” at signing time.

In a victory for Katy Perry, a Los Angeles judge announced Wednesday that she intends to block an effort by nuns to sell a Los Feliz convent to a competing buyer.

April 13, 2016

The trial began in late September, and the judge has since bifurcated the case. The “Roar” singer is expected to testify in front of the judge in the countersuit regarding damages.

Westcott’s son, Chart Westcott, told People, “While we do not agree with [the judge’s] ruling and wish he had spelled our father’s name correctly in his ruling, we accept it.” “Katy Perry will now have to testify, in person, on damages and the contradictory claims she has made over lost income for the rental of my father’s home. While this has been a long road, the fight for my father is not over and we will continue to represent him and his legacy of incredible achievements.”