Katy Perry to receive USD 3 million for legal fee coverage
People reported that Carl Wescott has been ordered to pay Katy Perry back for all the legal fees she spent to fight the multi-year legal battle over the Montecito mansion that he had sold to her. The ruling was served on May 28 in LA, where the judge stated that the singer was entitled to the money. This update follows Wescott’s loss in November 2025, when a judge deemed that the sale of the property was correct and final. Later, the Texan resident also paid USD 1.8 million to Perry’s team.
More about Katy Perry and Carl Wescott’s legal battle
Katy Perry and her ex-partner, Orlando Bloom, had purchased the Monetcito property from Wescott in 2020 for USD 15 million. A few days after the deal was finalised, he attempted to back out and cited that he was mentally incapacitated and that he wished to rescind the sale. Wecott had been diagnosed with Huntington’s disease in 2015.After a years-long legal battle and a lawsuit against Perry’s business manager Bernie Gudvi, the court ruled in favor of the ‘Firework’ singer. It cited that she was entitled to get paid USD 1.8 million. The amount consisted of the USD 2.7 million rental value of the mansion, with a deduction of the value of retained capital, as well as Westcott’s lost interest. Westcott’s claims were denied as the judge ruled that the man appeared to be “coherent, engaged, lucid, and rational.” The court said mental incapacity did not suffice in this matter.The property in question is spread across 2.5 acres of land and even features eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, a three-bedroom guesthouse, an infinity pool, a jacuzzi, and an outdoor fireplace, along with a view of the ocean nearby. Perry and Bloom had initially purchased the home for their family, along with their daughter, Daisy Dove. The two have since separated, with Perry now dating former Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.
