Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom ended their relationship in 2025, but a $15 million mansion they agreed to purchase six years ago is still keeping their names together in court documents. The latest disagreement concerns money the former owner says he has yet to receive.
Businessman Carl Westcott, who sold the Montecito, California, property in 2020, now wants permission to subpoena both celebrities. He claims Perry made a $900,000 payment in June 2026 but failed to transfer the remaining balance from the sale.
According to court documents obtained by TMZ, Westcott is seeking to question Perry and Bloom over the outstanding money. Perry’s business manager has opposed the request, and the judge has not yet ruled on it.
The latest filing brings another financial argument into a real estate lawsuit that has been going through California courts since 2020. What began as a disagreement over the validity of a home sale has already resulted in decisions concerning ownership, damages and millions of dollars in legal fees.
The $15 Million Home Purchase That Started the Dispute
Video: From the time when Perry and Bloom were still together, this is a house tour through the mansion.
Back in July 2020, Perry and Bloom were preparing for a new chapter in their personal lives. The couple was expecting their daughter, Daisy, and had arranged to purchase an estate in Montecito, the wealthy Santa Barbara County community known for its secluded luxury properties.
The property was owned by Carl Westcott, a businessman associated with several companies, including 1-800-Flowers. The estate had eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms and substantial grounds, making it an expensive purchase even by celebrity real estate standards.
Shortly after agreeing to the $15 million sale, Westcott tried to withdraw from the transaction.
His lawyers argued that he had not been capable of making an informed decision when he signed the contract. Westcott had recently undergone spinal surgery, was taking prescription pain medication and had previously been diagnosed with Huntington’s disease.
The legal argument concerned his capacity to consent to the sale, rather than the price alone.
Perry’s representatives disagreed. They maintained that Westcott had been capable of entering the agreement and pointed to his actions during the transaction as evidence that he knew what he was doing.
As Bloomberg Law reported during the 2023 trial, attorneys presented competing interpretations of Westcott’s medical condition and conduct immediately after the contract was signed.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner ultimately rejected Westcott’s attempt to invalidate the sale. The transaction was allowed to proceed, but the legal proceedings continued over financial compensation.
Why Carl Westcott Wants to Question Perry and Bloom Again
The latest court filing concerns the remaining purchase money, rather than another attempt to cancel the original agreement.
Westcott says he was entitled to receive a balance of close to $4 million after the property transaction. According to his new filing, Perry transferred $900,000 in June but did not pay the rest.
He now wants court permission to subpoena Perry and Bloom, which would allow him to question them under the legal process concerning the outstanding payment.
Perry’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, has challenged the request.
Gudvi argues that the remaining money cannot be released until Westcott’s appeal concerning a separate legal fee award is resolved. He also contends that the proposed subpoenas are intended to harass the former couple.
Both sides are presenting competing positions concerning the timing and handling of the money. Westcott maintains that he is still owed payment, while Gudvi says the unresolved appeal prevents the balance from being released.
No judge has ordered Perry or Bloom to appear for questioning in response to the filing.
Orlando Bloom Has a Financial Connection to the Property
View this post on Instagram
Bloom’s name appearing in the latest request may surprise readers who followed earlier reports describing the dispute primarily as a Katy Perry lawsuit.
The actor has a documented connection to the ownership arrangement.
During Perry’s testimony in August last year, the court heard that title to the mansion had been transferred to DDoveB LLC, a company managed by Bloom and his business representatives. The company name was inspired by Daisy Dove, the daughter he shares with Perry.
Bloomberg Law reported on the testimony, including evidence that Westcott and his family had received $9 million in connection with the transfer of the property.
Perry also testified that she and Bloom could share money awarded in the damages proceedings.
The ownership arrangement helps explain why Westcott wants information from both celebrities. Bloom’s connection to the property goes further than simply having been in a relationship with Perry when the purchase was arranged.
However, an interest in the property does not automatically establish that Bloom personally owes the disputed balance. The court would need to consider the relevant contracts, ownership arrangements and obligations.
Perry Has Already Won Millions in Damages and Legal Fees
The original dispute has produced substantial financial rulings.
In November 2025, Perry was awarded $1,842,142.84 in damages related to the property dispute. The award followed arguments over lost rental income and expenses associated with the delayed transaction.
Her legal team had sought a much larger amount during the damages phase. Attorneys argued that years of litigation had prevented Perry from receiving the property when originally expected and had caused financial losses.
The court did not award the entire sum requested.
Another ruling followed in June 2026, when a Los Angeles judge ordered Westcott to pay more than $3 million in attorney fees. Perry’s legal representatives had sought roughly $4.5 million, but the judge reduced the requested amount.
According to People’s report on the June ruling, the legal fee award came after years of litigation over the purchase.
Those rulings help explain the dispute over the remaining sale proceeds. The parties are dealing with both the money due under the property transaction and separate financial obligations arising from the court case.
The October filing does not establish that the entire disputed balance has been wrongfully withheld. The judge has yet to resolve the latest request concerning the proposed subpoenas.
What Happened to the Mansion After the Court Battle?
The property eventually changed hands, but Perry and Bloom did not simply settle into the home and leave the litigation behind.
During the damages proceedings, attorneys discussed rental income from the estate. The property was subsequently leased to actor Chris Pratt and his wife, Katherine Schwarzenegger, beginning in February 2025.
The rental arrangement became relevant because the parties disagreed over the financial losses Perry had claimed during the years she was unable to use the property.
Bloom and Perry also separated in 2025 after nearly a decade of an on-and-off relationship. They continue to share parenting responsibilities for their daughter.
The property dispute has nevertheless continued independently of their separation. A contract negotiated during their relationship can still create legal and financial questions years after the relationship ends.
The Bottom Line
If the court permits the subpoenas, Perry and Bloom could be required to provide testimony or information relevant to the disputed purchase balance. If the request is denied, Westcott would need to pursue the payment disagreement through other available legal procedures.
There is also the unresolved appeal involving legal fees. Its outcome may affect the arguments concerning how and when the outstanding purchase money should be handled.
For now, the latest Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom court development concerns a request for questioning, not a new judgment against either celebrity.
Six years after the original agreement, the mansion has changed ownership, Perry and Bloom have separated, and the courts have awarded millions of dollars in damages and fees. The remaining fight concerns who should receive the disputed money and when it must be paid.
