Katy Perry Officially Gains Ownership of $15 Million Montecito Home After Years-Long Legal Battle

The “Roar” singer first entered into contract to buy the sprawling California property from entrepreneur Carl Westcott in 2020.

Katy Perry is officially the owner of her Montecito, Calif. home after being involved in a years-long legal battle over it, PEOPLE can confirm.

The singer, 39, now has ownership of the Santa Barbara County property under the LLC DDoveB, according to property records obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

Per the outlet, Perry took title of the property on Friday, May 17. The company’s name is in honor of her 3-year-old daughter Daisy Dove, whom she shares with fiancé Orlando Bloom.

Perry first purchased the 1930s mansion from entrepreneur Carl Westcott for $15 million in July 2020. She intended to use the eight-bedroom, 11-bathroom estate as her and Bloom’s family home.

The sprawling 9,285-square-foot property sits on roughly 2.5 acres and has an infinity pool, jacuzzi, outdoor fireplace, kitchen area and a three-bedroom guesthouse that overlooks the ocean.

Days after the deal was finalized, Westcott — who was diagnosed with a genetic brain disorder known as Huntington’s Disease in 2015 — attempted to rescind the deal, citing his mental incapacity.

After Westcott filed a suit against Perry’s business manager Bernie Gudvi back in August 2020, the case then went to trial in late September 2023.

During opening statements, Westcott’s attorney Andrew Thomas said that the 1-800-Flowers founder was exhibiting signs of “delusion” and “intrusive thoughts” due to painkillers he was taking after having spinal surgery when he sold his home.

He then claimed Westcott began feeling “mentally clear” again a week post-surgery and told the brokerage representing Gudvi that he was not in the right mind to sign any binding contracts.
Despite his claims, the lawsuit reached a tentative ruling in favor of Perry in November 2023.

Wescott presented no persuasive evidence that he lacked capacity to enter into a real estate contract,” the court’s decision read at the time.