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.

What looked like a fresh legal showdown this week is actually the continuation of a five-year battle that has now ended in a significant victory for Perry’s business manager, and effectively for the pop star as well.

The latest filings, though widely interpreted as new developments, were procedural updates required before the court issued its final ruling on damages.

Perry’s team has long argued that the prolonged dispute over the $15 million Montecito mansion caused substantial financial loss, including rental value and repair costs.

While initial filings sought nearly $5 million in total damages, the court ultimately awarded Perry’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, $3,054,581.84, covering the rental value of the property and necessary repairs.

After accounting for retained capital and Westcott’s lost interest, the final amount awarded is $1,842,142.84.

This ruling reinforces a decisive win for Perry’s side, following a spring decision in which the judge found that Westcott was of sound mind when he sold the property in 2020.

According to the earlier ruling, the court found no persuasive evidence that Westcott lacked capacity, noting he appeared “coherent, engaged, lucid, and rational” during the sale and had entered other contracts before and after signing with no attempts to rescind them.

The contentious legal saga began in 2020 when Carl Westcott sued Perry’s business manager, alleging he was not mentally capable of understanding the sale due to illness and medication.

Katy Perry has been involved throughout the case because she and Orlando Bloom were the intended buyers, though she was never the defendant.

The court record shows Westcott owned the Montecito home for only two months before agreeing to sell, a sale that would have given him a $3.75 million profit.

The lengthy five-year litigation was prolonged in part by six postponements requested by Westcott’s family.

Earlier this year, the court sided entirely with Gudvi, ruling that Westcott knowingly signed the contract while fully competent.

The damages hearings in August continued the process, culminating in this week’s final award.

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.”