Katy Perry’s $5M Fight With Elderly Vet Takes A Stunning Turn

Katy Perry’s long-running legal clash with disabled veteran Carl Westcott has reached a dramatic new stage, with the pop star now demanding nearly $5 million in damages tied to the Montecito mansion she purchased in 2020.

The high-stakes battle, already stretching over five years, intensified after a judge ruled in the singer’s favor earlier this year.

Now, both sides are fighting over who truly owes money, setting up another explosive turn in one of Perry’s most contentious legal disputes.

Perry is now asking the court to force Wescott to pay $4,718,698.95, a figure her team says reflects the financial damage caused by the prolonged legal fight.

According to court documents filed on November 21 and reviewed by the Daily Mail, Perry claims she lost substantial rental income and had to cover necessary repairs on the $15 million Montecito estate.

Her attorneys argue she is “entitled to $3,525,000 in rental value” because the dispute prevented her from using or renting out the property for years. The remaining damages stem from repair costs.

In the filings, the “Dark Horse” crooner’s attorneys state that Wescott should pay “$1,343,401.95 for necessary repairs for a total of $4,868,401.95.”

After subtracting the losses he suffered, calculated at $149,703, the final amount Perry seeks is $4,718,698.95.

The singer’s position comes after the May 2024 ruling, where the judge concluded that Wescott was of sound mind at the time of the sale and presented “no persuasive evidence that he lacked capacity to enter into a real estate contract.”

While Katy Perry insists Carl Westcott must pay her millions, the veteran’s legal team is pushing a completely opposite narrative.

According to their court documents filed on November 7, it’s the 41-year-old who still owes money, specifically $6 million of the $15 million she agreed to pay for the mansion.

They argued that Perry has only paid $9 million so far, with the rest outstanding.

Westcott’s attorneys acknowledged they would be willing to deduct repair costs, reducing the amount they believe Perry owes to $5,740,418.18.

This counterargument stands in sharp contrast to Perry’s calculation of damages, setting up a major financial clash as the litigation continues.

Perry appeared via Zoom in August to testify about her role in the purchase, but her testimony ignited backlash from Westcott’s family.

When asked whether she stood to gain from the litigation, she answered, “Yes … justice; I stand to lose money if it does not work in my favor.”

Her response and her demeanor did not sit well with Westcott’s sons, Chart and Court.

As The Blast reported, Chart revealed, “It was good for her to have the Wicked Witch finally come out of the West,” criticizing the TV personality after her virtual appearance.

Both sons accused Perry of showing a pattern of disrespect throughout the dispute.

Court said her answers were “a bit calculated and ingratiating,” and in an exclusive video, he added, “I’m feeling really good about where we stand. It’s truly a blessing to be able to defend my father, who has been unable to defend himself while he’s now on his deathbed.”

The emotional toll on the family has been a recurring theme, with Court calling the legal battle a “five-year, horrible, horrible experience” for them.

During the hearing, Katy Perry also addressed questions about how the home was paid for and whether she had a financial stake in it.

She testified that her ex-partner, Orlando Bloom, was “family for life,” but court revelations complicated the financial picture.

According to reports cited in court, Bloom allegedly funded the purchase through an LLC, not Perry herself.

Westcott’s attorneys argued that this proved the songwriter did not personally have a financial stake in the property.

However, Perry maintained that she benefited from the purchase but reportedly did not clarify whether she and Bloom remained financial partners after their June breakup.

When asked if she could have paid for the home outright, she answered, “I could have, but I wanted to do a mortgage instead,” per ABC News.

The family called her explanations evasive, continuing to paint her as disingenuous in the process.

One of the most pointed criticisms came from Chart, who objected not just to Perry’s testimony but to her appearance.

He claimed she seemed “sort of rehearsed, like a robot,” and took issue with what she wore to court, saying she appeared to be wearing pajamas.

“Just disrespectful. I think it’s reflective of how she views everyone in the world. They are all, you know, less than her. They’re all not important to her. We’re all just her little playthings to do what she wants,” he said.

Court echoed the sentiment, adding, “Bottom line, just because you can carry a tune doesn’t mean you deserve the applause.”