Pop icon Katy Perry has found herself at the center of a courtroom drama once again—this time over a lavish $15 million mansion in Montecito, California. The singer, known for her powerful performances, hit songs, and colorful persona, recently gave remote testimony during the second trial in a legal battle that has stretched on for years. Her one-word answer when asked what she sought from the trial was simple but striking: “Justice.”
This high-profile case has captured global media attention, not just because of Perry’s celebrity status but also due to the complicated legal questions it raises about property rights, contracts, and mental competency.
The Mansion Dispute
In 2020, Katy Perry and her then-partner Orlando Bloom purchased a sprawling Montecito estate worth $15 million. The upscale neighborhood near Santa Barbara is home to numerous Hollywood elites and business moguls.
However, the seller, 85-year-old businessman Carl Westcott, later contested the deal. Westcott argued that he was not mentally competent at the time of signing and claimed the contract should be voided. His legal team stated that age-related health issues impaired his judgment, making the sale invalid.
Perry’s side—represented legally by her business manager Bernie Gudvi—disputed that claim. They argued that the transaction was valid and binding.
The case first went to trial in 2023, where Perry’s team prevailed. But what followed was another round of litigation that has kept the dispute alive.
The Second Trial
The current case stems from a countersuit filed on Perry’s behalf. Her team claims that the prolonged legal fight has cost them significant losses, including:
- Rental income that could have been generated by leasing the mansion.
- Millions in maintenance and upkeep for the estate.
This sequel trial has brought Perry back into the spotlight, with her testimony being one of the most anticipated moments.
Perry’s Testimony
During her hour-long appearance via video, Perry was careful and deliberate with her answers. She refused to directly admit that winning the trial would bring her financial gain, but she did acknowledge that losing could result in substantial financial losses.
Her exact words were: “I stand to lose money if it doesn’t work in my favor.”
When asked why she was involved in this drawn-out legal fight, Perry firmly replied: “Justice.”
Questions About Orlando Bloom
Westcott’s lawyer, Andrew J. Thomas, repeatedly tried to bring actor Orlando Bloom into the discussion. Bloom, who was Perry’s partner at the time of the purchase, had overseen remodeling of the property. However, the judge ruled that Bloom’s testimony would be unnecessary, since his involvement was already well-documented and would only add redundancy.
When asked about Bloom’s role, Perry described herself as his “partner and adviser.” Despite the couple’s split in July 2025, Perry clarified in court that, “We’re family for life.” The two share a daughter, who recently celebrated her fifth birthday.
Heated Exchanges in Court
The trial saw several tense exchanges between the attorneys. Perry’s lawyer, Eric Rowen, objected to many of Thomas’s questions, particularly those concerning Bloom. He also fiercely objected when Thomas asked Perry about Westcott’s prior stay in a mental institution—calling it an attempt to create a media-driven narrative rather than a legitimate legal question.
The judge sustained the objection, disallowing that line of questioning.
Interestingly, throughout the trial, Perry was referred to by her legal name, Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson.
Perry’s Financial Position
One of the trial’s focal points was Perry’s ability to afford the mansion outright. When asked if she had enough cash to buy the property without a mortgage, she admitted:
“I could have, but I wanted to do a mortgage instead.”
This detail highlights not just Perry’s financial strength but also the strategic financial planning common among high-net-worth individuals.
The trial also touched on Perry’s original intent for the property. In the earlier case, she stated she planned to live in the mansion. However, in the current case, rental income has become a major point of contention. At one point, actor Chris Pratt’s family was mentioned as potential renters, though Pratt himself was not included on the witness list.
Lighthearted Moment
Amid the tense testimony, there was one humorous exchange. While recalling an interaction with Westcott, Perry said, “I was pregnant at the time.”
The judge misheard her and thought she said, “It was private.” Perry corrected with a laugh, repeating, “No, pregnant!” The courtroom shared a moment of levity before resuming the serious proceedings.
Judge to Decide Outcome
Like the first trial, this second case has no jury. The decision will be made solely by Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner. Perry’s testimony took place on the fourth day of the trial, which is expected to last a few more days.
The stakes remain high: if Perry’s side wins, she could potentially recover damages for lost rental income and maintenance costs. If she loses, the long legal saga may continue with new appeals and filings.
Perry’s History with Property Disputes
This is not the first time Katy Perry has faced a legal battle over real estate. She previously clashed with an order of Catholic nuns over the sale of a Los Angeles convent. That case also garnered significant public attention, ultimately ending in Perry’s favor.
Additionally, she has dealt with high-profile copyright lawsuits, including one involving her hit song “Dark Horse.” In that case, she initially lost at trial but later won on appeal.
These experiences have made Perry no stranger to long and public legal disputes.
Katy Perry Beyond the Courtroom
While tied up in legal matters, Perry is still deeply engaged in her music career. She is currently on an international tour and continues to maintain a strong presence in the entertainment industry.
Recently, her name has also been linked to Canadian politics, with speculation about her friendship with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau making headlines.
Even with personal changes—such as her recent split from Bloom—Perry continues to balance her career, motherhood, and high-profile legal challenges.
Conclusion
The ongoing trial over the $15 million Montecito mansion is more than just a property dispute—it’s a case that reflects the intersection of celebrity, wealth, legal complexities, and personal relationships.
For Katy Perry, the fight is about more than just money. As she told the court, what she truly seeks is justice. Whether the judge sides with her or the seller, the decision will mark another chapter in the fascinating life and career of one of pop music’s biggest stars.