Katy Perry demands $5 million for repair costs & lost rent after court battle over luxury Montecito property.
The legal drama surrounding Katy Perry’s villa is entering the next round. On November 21st, the singer formulated a claim for damages of five million US dollars.
The dispute over the luxury property in Montecito
The legal dispute revolves around a villa in Montecito, near Santa Barbara, that the singer bought in 2020 with her then-husband Orlando Bloom. The previous owner is veteran Carl Westcott. A few days after the 2020 purchase agreement was concluded, he tried to dispute it. He claimed that he was not in full possession of his mental faculties at the time of signing because he was on painkillers. However, this request was not granted and in May 2024 the Perry property was awarded sole possession by the court.
Million dollar lawsuit over repair costs and loss of rent
Since then, the legal dispute has not stopped. In a letter dated November 21st, the “Teenage Dream” interpreter made a claim for five million US dollars in damages. The reason for this was expensive repairs that were necessary after the purchase was completed. The lost rental income resulting from the legal dispute over the sale of the property should also be compensated for by the damages demanded.
Westcott demands outstanding purchase price
On the other hand, Westcott is also demanding millions in payments from Katy Perry. In court documents filed by Westcott’s attorney in early November, it was stated that Perry has only paid a portion of the $15 million purchase price. There would still be around six million US dollars missing to pay the agreed property price. The legal team agreed to offset the repair costs.
Editorial recommendations
The property includes a total of eight bedrooms, eleven bathrooms, an infinity pool, an outdoor kitchen and a guest house with sea views.
Criticism of the pop icon
“Celebrity Net Worth” estimates the successful pop icon’s fortune at just under $400 million. The fact that Perry is still fighting in court with an 85-year-old disabled veteran over a relatively smaller amount of money for repairs is widely criticized.