In November 2024, a Los Angeles court settled one of Hollywood’s messiest property disputes. Judge Joseph Lipner ruled that Katy Perry won $1.8 million from Carl Westcott, an 85-year-old Army veteran, over a Montecito mansion.
Perry originally demanded $4.7 million, so the judge gave her roughly 39 percent of what she asked for. The case became a public relations disaster for Perry despite her courtroom victory because it pitted a wealthy pop star against an elderly, disabled man in hospice.
In May 2020, Westcott bought the eight-bedroom Montecito estate for $11.25 million. Four months later, Perry’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, approached him with a larger offer: $15 million for the same property. Perry wanted a family home with her fiancé, Orlando Bloom. Westcott signed the contract on July 14, 2020, but his lawyers demanded cancellation within days.
Westcott claimed prescription painkillers from recent surgery had clouded his judgment. He also blamed his 2015 Huntington’s disease diagnosis for impairing his thinking. Perry’s team rejected this completely, insisting Westcott understood exactly what he was doing when he signed the papers. Perry had already begun renovations and invested a substantial amount of money into the property.
In May 2024, Judge Lipner ruled firmly in favor of Perry. He found that Westcott presented no credible evidence of mental incapacity when signing the contract. The judge noted that Westcott appeared sharp, engaged, and reasonable during negotiations and had successfully negotiated the terms himself. When calculating damages, Perry demanded a total of $4.7 million: $3.5 million in lost rental income and $ 1.2 million in repair costs.
Her team presented comparable rental rates for similar Montecito estates. Westcott’s defense countered that damages should not exceed $260,000, arguing Perry had inflated both rental income projections and repair estimates. Expert witnesses questioned the mansion’s actual market rental value.
The Judge’s Decision and Social Media Explosion
On November 25, 2024, Judge Lipner made his final ruling. He awarded Perry $1.84 million but deducted this amount from a $6 million escrow account that Perry’s business manager had withheld during litigation.
This meant Perry received credit toward releasing held funds rather than cash directly from Westcott. The judge applied discount factors reflecting real market conditions, effectively splitting the difference between both sides’ positions. The escrow arrangement capped Westcott’s liability while providing Perry with partial compensation for documented losses.
Social media exploded immediately after the ruling. Internet commenters condemned the lawsuit as morally wrong—a Grammy-winning artist pursuing millions from an elderly, disabled veteran in hospice. News outlets across California, Washington, Texas, Florida, and Maryland documented the backlash. Entertainment reporters highlighted the stark optics: a major celebrity suing a hospice patient.
International outlets in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and India framed the case as a cautionary tale about American celebrity litigation and disability rights. Westcott’s family spoke to reporters, calling the legal battle emotionally devastating for their father’s final years.
Perry’s team countered that Westcott acted as a sophisticated businessman who signed a legitimate contract with full mental capacity and now sought to escape his obligations using disability as a justification.
A Case That Raises Questions About Justice and Fairness
As of late November 2024, Westcott’s legal team had prepared a hearing for December 30 to challenge Judge Lipner’s ruling. Observers anticipated new evidence or legal arguments, though the specific grounds remained confidential.
The case reverberated through disability rights circles and the luxury real estate sector. Legal scholars and elder law organizations cite this dispute as emblematic of broader questions about capacity determination, contract enforceability, and judicial treatment of elderly and disabled litigants. Real estate attorneys now reference the dispute as a cautionary tale about transaction protections and risks inherent in high-value property sales.
The Perry-Westcott dispute ultimately illustrates a fundamental tension in American jurisprudence: the collision between legal rights and public perception. Judge Lipner’s ruling reinforced property rights and the enforceability of contracts.
Yet Perry’s legal victory became a reputational challenge, demonstrating that courtroom success does not guarantee social acceptance, particularly when wealth and celebrity intersect with vulnerability and disability.