Pop star Katy Perry is seeking nearly five million dollars in damages from 85 year old Army veteran Carl Westcott, the original owner of a Montecito mansion she purchased in 2020. The long running property dispute has drawn widespread criticism because of Westcott’s age, declining health and military background. The case centers on Perry’s claim that Westcott’s attempt to undo the sale caused her significant financial losses.
The conflict began in July 2020 when Perry and her then partner bought Westcott’s property, an eight bedroom estate valued at around fifteen million dollars. Westcott had recently undergone back surgery and said that he had been heavily medicated at the time he signed the sales contract. He argued that the medication impaired his ability to properly understand the agreement and therefore the sale should be voided. He filed to reverse the transaction almost immediately after signing.
After years of litigation, a judge ruled in late 2023 that Westcott had not provided convincing evidence of mental incapacity at the time of the sale. That decision confirmed Perry as the legal owner of the property. However, the ruling did not end the dispute. Perry then pursued a new claim for damages which she says she incurred during the extended legal battle. Her filing seeks roughly five million dollars for lost rental income, repair and maintenance costs and legal fees that she argues were caused when the mansion could not be used as intended during the lengthy dispute.
Westcott’s legal team has countered by saying Perry still owes him a remaining balance of about six million dollars from the original sale. They argue that she should not be pursuing damages from a man to whom she has not fully paid the agreed price. They also say the veteran’s health has deteriorated significantly during the conflict. Westcott, who has a degenerative neurological condition, is bedridden and now in hospice care. His family has described the legal proceedings as emotionally and physically draining.
Public reaction to the case has been intense. Many critics have condemned the optics of a wealthy global pop star taking legal action for millions of dollars against a severely ill, elderly veteran. Westcott’s family has said they are heartbroken by both his failing health and the stress of facing continued litigation. His son stated publicly that the family would prefer an apology instead of more courtroom battles. Commentators have also drawn comparisons to previous property disputes involving Perry, noting that this is not the first time she has become involved in a high profile real estate conflict with older homeowners.
Supporters of Perry argue that she is acting within her legal rights. They point out that the court already ruled the sale valid and that Westcott did not meet the legal threshold to void the contract based on incapacity. From this perspective, Perry is simply seeking to recover financial losses caused by a breached agreement. Her advocates say the criticism is driven by emotion rather than contract law.
The legal issues in the case touch on broader questions about fairness, power and vulnerability within the real estate market. High value properties often involve complex contract language and long negotiations. When one party is elderly or dealing with serious medical issues, questions about capacity and consent can become central. In this case, the stark contrast between the parties a global celebrity with vast resources and an elderly man with a rapidly declining medical condition has shaped much of the public debate.
For Westcott, the dispute has become a deeply personal ordeal during what his family describes as the final phase of his life. For Perry, the case is presented as a matter of financial restitution and the enforcement of a legal contract. The litigation is ongoing and could continue into next year depending on how the court handles both Perry’s damages claim and the counterclaim from Westcott’s legal team.
As proceedings move forward, the case continues to raise difficult questions. Should strict contract enforcement prevail even when one party is in extreme physical decline. Does the law make enough room for compassion when consent is disputed after the fact. And how should the public weigh the balance of legal rights against the realities of human vulnerability. The court will ultimately decide the financial outcome, but the ethical debate surrounding the case appears likely to endure far beyond the verdict.
