Six Years Later: The $15 Million Montecito Mansion Dispute Entangling Katy Perry, Orlando Bloom, and Carl Westcott
Executive Summary and Main Facts
Six years after signing an agreement to acquire a luxury estate in Montecito, California, pop icon Katy Perry and actor Orlando Bloom remain locked in complex court proceedings with the property’s former owner, entrepreneur Carl Westcott. Despite ending their romantic relationship in 2025, Perry and Bloom’s legal and financial ties remain bound by the $15 million purchase of the Santa Barbara County property, driving post-trial motions in Los Angeles Superior Court.
The newest legal skirmish centers on a motion filed in October 2026 by Westcott, the founder of 1-800-Flowers and veteran businessman. Westcott is requesting court permission to subpoena both Perry and Bloom for live questioning regarding an outstanding balance from the original $15 million purchase price. Westcott contends that while Perry remitted a $900,000 partial payment in June 2026, he has yet to receive the remaining balance—estimated at roughly $3.1 million—arising from the final settlement of the estate transfer.
Representing Perry and the underlying business entities, business manager Bernie Gudvi has formally opposed the subpoena application. Defense filings argue that the withheld funds are subject to pending appellate outcomes concerning a multi-million-dollar attorney fee award, and that forcing the former couple to sit for depositions constitutes unnecessary harassment. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner has yet to issue a definitive ruling on Westcott’s request.
This dispute highlights how complex real estate transactions involving corporate entities, counterclaims, multi-million-dollar post-judgment damage awards, and attorney fee offsets can persist long after the primary title transfer is settled and personal relationships end.
Detailed Chronology of the Dispute (2020–2026)
July 2020 Late 2020 Late 2023 Feb 2025 Nov 2025 June 2026 Oct 2026
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ Contract │ ───> │ Rescission│ ───> │ Phase I │ ───> │ Estate │ ───>│ Phase II │ ───>│ $3M+ Fee │ ───>│ Subpoena │
│ Signed │ │ Attempt │ │ Trial │ │ Leased │ │ Damages │ │ Award / │ │ Motion │
│ ($15M) │ │ & Suit │ │ Ruling │ │ to Pratt │ │ ($1.84M) │ │ $900k │ │ Filed │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘July 2020: The Initial Purchase Agreement
In July 2020, Perry and Bloom were preparing for the birth of their daughter, Daisy Dove Bloom. Seeking a private family residence in Montecito—an enclave known for high-profile residents including Oprah Winfrey and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex—the couple entered into a contract to acquire a sprawling eight-bedroom, 11-bathroom mansion for $15 million. The property was owned by Carl Westcott, who had purchased the estate shortly prior.
August–Late 2020: The Attempted Rescission and Initial Lawsuit
Days after signing the contract, Westcott sought to rescind the agreement. His legal team asserted that Westcott lacked the legal capacity to give informed consent to the contract. Westcott, then 81, had recently undergone major spinal surgery, was taking prescribed opioid painkillers, and suffered from Huntington’s disease—a degenerative neurological condition. Perry’s legal counsel rejected the attempt to cancel the sale, arguing that Westcott was fully rational during contract negotiations and showing that he had actively engaged with real estate brokers. The matter escalated into a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking specific performance to enforce the contract.
Late 2023: Phase I Trial and Capacity Ruling
Following years of pre-trial litigation, the case went to trial before Judge Joseph Lipner in late 2023. The proceedings focused on medical testimony regarding Westcott’s mental state at the exact moment of signing. In December 2023, Judge Lipner issued a proposed decision—later finalized—finding that Westcott failed to present clear evidence showing a lack of capacity. The court validated the sales contract, clearing the path for title transfer.
February 2025: Leasing the Property
While litigation moved into the damages phase, the property changed occupants. In February 2025, the Montecito estate was leased to actor Chris Pratt and his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger. The lease arrangement later became a focal point in calculating loss of rental value and property upkeep costs during the period Perry was deprived of possession.
Late 2025: Relationship Separation and Phase II Damages Award
In 2025, Perry and Bloom publicly announced their separation after nearly a decade together. Despite the breakup, their joint legal representation in the Montecito matter remained intact due to shared financial exposure. In November 2025, Judge Lipner ruled on Phase II of the litigation, awarding Perry $1,842,142.84 in compensatory damages. The award accounted for lost fair-market rental value and uncompensated maintenance costs incurred throughout the delay, though it fell short of the multi-million-dollar sum Perry’s legal team had sought.
June 2026: Legal Fee Allocations and Partial Payment
In June 2026, the court addressed attorney fees. Recognizing Perry as the prevailing party under the real estate contract’s fee-shifting clause, Judge Lipner ordered Westcott to pay more than $3 million in legal costs, reducing Perry’s initial request of approximately $4.5 million. Concurrently, Perry transferred $900,000 toward the unpaid balance of the principal purchase price, holding back the remaining balance pending final offsets and appeal decisions.
October 2026: Subpoena Applications Filed
On October 15, 2026, court filings obtained by legal media revealed that Westcott had filed a motion seeking leave to issue subpoenas to Perry and Bloom. Westcott alleged that an unpaid principal sum of nearly $3.1 million remained outstanding from the original $15 million purchase contract. Perry’s business representatives countered with formal objections, triggering the court debate currently awaiting Judge Lipner’s ruling.
Financial Analysis and Entity Breakdown
The legal disputes surround a complex network of property title transfers, entity structures, damages awards, and cross-calculating financial offsets.
Property Specifications
- Location: Montecito, Santa Barbara County, California
- Purchase Price: $15,000,000
- Accommodations: 8 Bedrooms, 11 Bathrooms
- Grounds: Multi-acre private estate with swimming pool, detached guesthouse, and private grounds.
Financial Breakdown of the Transaction and Offsets
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Total Contract Purchase Price: $15,000,000 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Initial Funds Delivered / Transferred: -$9,000,000 |
| Partial Payment Transferred by Perry (June 2026): -$900,000 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gross Outstanding Purchase Balance Asserted: ~$5,100,000 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Offsets & Reductions Claimed by Buyer Side: |
| - Phase II Rental/Loss Damages Awarded (Nov 2025): -$1,842,142 |
| - Attorney Fee & Cost Award (June 2026): -$3,000,000+ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Disputed Remaining Net Principal: ~$257,858 |
| (Westcott asserts ~$3.1M before accounting for fee offsets) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+Corporate Ownership: DDoveB LLC
During court testimony, Perry revealed that ownership of the estate was vested in DDoveB LLC, a limited liability company managed by Orlando Bloom alongside his financial management team. The entity’s name derives from the initials of the couple’s daughter, Daisy Dove Bloom.
Although Perry served as the primary source of financial backing and public claimant during the trial, Bloom’s managerial position within DDoveB LLC gave him an legal interest in the property title. Testimony during the 2023 trial established that $9 million had initially been remitted through entity channels to Westcott’s family trusts, establishing Bloom’s connection to the post-judgment enforcement procedures.
Official Legal Positions and Court Arguments
OCTOBER 2026 SUBPOENA MOTION
│
┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
CARL WESTCOTT (SELLER) BERNIE GUDVI (BUYER REP)
────────────────────── ────────────────────────
• Claims $3.1M balance remains. • $900k paid; rest subject to offsets.
• Demands live depositions under oath. • Ongoing appeal pauses fee payouts.
• Asserts right to trace funds. • Calls subpoenas "harassment."Carl Westcott’s Stance
Westcott’s legal counsel argues that the contract enforcement and the post-judgment accounting are separate legal matters. Westcott asserts that:
- The purchase of the property is a discrete obligation requiring full payment of the agreed-upon $15 million purchase price.
- The $900,000 payment made in June 2026 confirms that a remaining principal balance is due.
- Subpoenaing Perry and Bloom is necessary to clarify the financial administration of DDoveB LLC, trace party assets, and determine why the remaining funds have not been released into escrow.
Defense Stance (Bernie Gudvi / Perry & Bloom)
Perry’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, filed formal opposition papers contesting the deposition subpoenas:
- Appellate Stay and Offsets: Defense counsel argues that the ultimate net payout depends on Westcott’s pending appeal regarding the $3 million legal fee award and the $1.84 million damages judgment. Releasing the full purchase balance while the appeal is pending could leave Perry unable to recover funds if the appellate court affirms or modifies the offsets.
- Improper Harassment: The defense contends that seeking personal depositions from high-profile celebrities after trial decisions have already been rendered serves no practical legal purpose and acts primarily as a harassment tactic.
- Corporate Separation: Defense lawyers argue that questions regarding cash distributions and entity accounting should be directed to entity financial managers, not the individual principals.
Legal and Industry Implications
Contract Law and Capacity Thresholds
This case underscores the high burden of proof required under California law to invalidate a signed contract on grounds of mental incapacity. Even when a party presents evidence of major medical procedures, prescription medication, and degenerative conditions like Huntington’s disease, courts prioritize contemporaneous evidence—such as rational communications with real estate agents and business executives—when evaluating legal capacity.
Complexities of Joint Real Estate Investments Post-Breakup
The ongoing litigation illustrates the administrative difficulties that arise when unwinding joint real estate acquisitions following a personal separation. Because Perry and Bloom structured the transaction through DDoveB LLC, both individuals remain tied to post-trial motions, post-judgment discovery, and potential enforcement actions long after their personal partnership ended.
[ Personal Relationship ] ───────> Ended (2025)
│
▼
[ Joint Business Structure ] ────> DDoveB LLC
│
▼
[ Litigation Exposure ] ─────────> Subpoena Risk & Financial Offsets (2026)Mechanics of Post-Judgment Offsets and Appeals
The current impasse highlights how post-judgment fee awards interact with outstanding purchase obligations:
- When a prevailing buyer is awarded substantial damages ($1.84 million) and attorney fees ($3 million+) under a contract’s fee-shifting provision, those awards can be set off against the remaining purchase price owed to the seller.
- If the seller appeals the attorney fee award, the buyer faces a risk: paying the full remaining purchase price while the appeal is pending could leave the buyer unable to collect on their fee award if the seller lacks liquid assets later.
- Consequently, buyers frequently hold back purchase funds equivalent to the judgment and fee awards until all appellate remedies are fully exhausted, creating post-judgment enforcement disputes like the one currently before Judge Lipner.
Court Outlook
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner is expected to issue a formal ruling on Westcott’s subpoena motion. The court will decide whether to compel Perry and Bloom to appear for post-judgment depositions, limit discovery strictly to corporate records, or stay discovery entirely until the pending appellate challenges are resolved.
