1 week ago
5
Katy Perry is no stranger to a courtroom (Image: Getty)
Katy Perry has found herself in the courtroom once again, embroiled in a property dispute that has captivated the public’s attention.
Known for her bold persona and chart-topping hits, The I Kissed A Girl hitmaker’s real estate dealings have stirred up as much drama as her pop anthems.
Her latest legal battle involves a $15 million Montecito mansion, which she purchased with fiancé Orlando Bloom, and the actor has been issued with a subpoena to testify in a February 2025 trial in which the Roar singer is attempting to claim damages from a man whose mansion she purchased more than four years ago.
The years-long battle has been shrouded in controversy as the previous owner, a veteran, who suffers from Huntington's disease, claimed he wasn’t mentally fit to finalise the deal.
A lengthy and very public legal battle then ensued, during which both sides sued the other in a bid to take control of the home.
Finally, in December 2023, a judge ruled in Perry’s favour and ordered that the original sales contracts would stand, determining that the veteran had not provided substantial evidence to support his claim that he was not in a fit mental state to have sold the property.
This is just the latest in a series of legal tangles that have put Perry in the spotlight.
Back in 2015, Perry faced off against a group of nuns over the sale of a Los Angeles convent, a case that drew both media frenzy and public outcry.
As the Montecito mansion dispute escalates, let’s take a look back the star’s weirdest lawsuits over the years.
Back in 2011 the star waged war with some nuns (Image: Getty)
Legal Battle with the Nuns
Katy Perry’s attempt to buy a former convent in Los Angeles sparked a lengthy and highly publicised legal battle.
The 40-year-old superstar went head-to-head with the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary after making a $14.5 million cash offer on the property.
The nuns had originally purchased the property in 1972 from businessman Daniel Donohue, but in 2011, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles reportedly forced the remaining sisters to move out against their will.
Archbishop Jose Gomez later agreed to sell the convent to Perry without consulting the nuns.
After discovering Perry’s interest in their former home, two of the sisters researched her background, reportedly feeling shocked by her performances and past interviews. In 2015, Perry met with the nuns, even singing the gospel song “Oh Happy Day” and showing them her “Jesus” tattoo to win them over.
Before Perry could complete the sale with Gomez, the nuns, claiming ownership of the property, decided to sell it to restaurateur Dana Hollister instead. Perry and the archdiocese subsequently sued the nuns and Hollister. A judge ultimately ruled in Perry's favour, invalidating Hollister’s purchase.
In 2017, Perry won the right to buy the convent, though she needed Vatican approval, as any church property sale over $7.5 million requires Vatican clearance.
That year, the Vatican delayed approval, requesting Perry find a new location for the House of Prayer. Later, a jury found that Hollister had intentionally interfered with Perry's purchase and ordered her to pay $3.47 million in attorney fees to the archdiocese and $1.57 million to Perry’s company for fees, citing malice and fraud.
Following the ruling, Hollister declared bankruptcy. In the end, Perry opted not to proceed with buying the convent.
the jury initially found Perry liable for infringement (Image: Getty)
Invalid email
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
'Dark Horse' Copyright Lawsuit
Katy Perry faced a major legal setback in 2014 when Christian hip-hop artist Flame, whose real name is Marcus Gray, accused her of copyright infringement.
Flame claimed that Perry’s hit song “Dark Horse” copied an eight-note riff from his 2008 track “Joyful Noise.” The case finally went to trial five years later, with Perry taking the stand to defend herself.
At one point, Perry even offered to sing the track live after technical issues prevented the jury from hearing the song. Producer Dr. Luke, who worked on the track with Perry, also testified, stating that neither he nor Perry had ever heard of Flame or his song before the lawsuit.
In a surprising turn, the jury found Perry liable for infringement and ordered her, along with other defendants, to pay Flame $2.78 million in damages.
However, Perry didn’t back down. She appealed the decision and scored a win in 2020 when a judge overturned the ruling.
Flame fought back, appealing the new decision, but in 2022, a federal appeals court ultimately ruled in Perry’s favour, ending the almost decade-long long legal battle.
Perry faced off against namesake fashion designer Katie Perry (Image: Getty)
Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry
In a legal battle that spanned over a decade, pop superstar Katy Perry faced off against Australian fashion designer Katie Perry (now known as Katie Taylor) over the rights to their shared name.
Taylor, who began selling clothing under her birth name in 2007, registered the "Katie Perry" trademark in Australia in 2008. Unaware of the singer at the time, Taylor was surprised when, in 2009, she received a cease-and-desist letter from Perry's legal team, demanding she stop using the name. Taylor stood her ground, and the singer's opposition was eventually withdrawn.
The dispute reignited in 2019 when Taylor sued the singer for trademark infringement, alleging that Perry's merchandise sold during her Australian tours in 2014 and 2018 violated her trademark rights. The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of Taylor, stating that Perry's company had indeed infringed upon the trademark. The court dismissed Perry's attempt to cancel Taylor's trademark, marking a significant victory for the designer.
Taylor described the outcome as a "David and Goliath" win for small businesses, emphasisng the importance of standing up against larger entities.
She stated: "Not only have I fought for myself, but I fought for small businesses in this country, many of them started by women, who can find themselves up against overseas entities who have much more financial power than we do."
Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom are entangled in a high-stakes legal battle (Image: Getty)
Eldery Veteran
Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom are entangled in a high-stakes legal battle over their $15 million Montecito mansion.
The home’s former owner, elderly veteran Carl Westcott, sold the property to the couple in July 2020, but three years later, he’s fighting to reverse the sale, claiming he “lacked the mental capacity to understand the nature and probable consequences of the contract.” With the next court date set for February 2025, this drama is far from over.
Westcott, who suffers from Huntington’s disease, alleges he was under the influence of painkillers after back surgery when he signed the sale documents, stating he was “of unsound mind and not competent to give his free, voluntary, or intelligent consent.” Soon after, he claimed he didn’t want to sell and apologising for any confusion.
Perry and Bloom sent a letter expressing “how much they liked the home and wanted to purchase it,” but he replied, pleading that he was “in the final few years of his life and cannot sell his home.” Despite his appeal, Perry and Bloom’s attorneys allegedly responded that the couple was “not willing to walk away” and that he was “obligated to complete the sale.”
A judge ruled in November 2023 that Westcott had not met the burden of proving he was mentally unfit at the time of the sale.
The star was accused of potential environmental violations during the video's production (Image: Katy Perry/YouTube)
‘Lifetimes’ Music Video Investigation
The mum-of-one, who also co-parents Bloom’s son from his previous marriage with Miranda Kerr, released the music video for her single "Lifetimes” in 2024 filmed across Spain's Balearic Islands, including Ibiza and Formentera.
Shortly after its release, the Balearic Islands' Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Natural Environment initiated an investigation into potential environmental violations during the video's production.
The ministry stated that the production company failed to obtain the necessary authorisation to film in protected areas, notably the sand dunes of S'Espalmador, which are part of the Ses Salines Natural Park and hold significant ecological value.
The ministry emphasised that while filming in such areas can be permitted, it requires prior authorisation to ensure environmental protection.
The investigation aims to determine whether the production caused any damage to these sensitive eco-systems. As of now, Perry has not publicly addressed the allegations.
English (US) ·