Katy Perry’s demand for $5.5 million

In 2020, Katy signed a deal to purchase an estate in Santa Barbara from Carl Wescott for $15 million after initially offering $13.5 million. However, weekly in touch Now news has come that Katy has submitted documents in the court saying that she owes more than 5.5 million dollars from Karl for the damage caused to the house.

In 2020, Karl sued Katy’s business manager, Bernie Goodwee, saying that the deal should be canceled because ‘he was heavily medicated following back surgery while the deal was being executed.’ However, Katy refuses to back out of the deal. In 2023, the court ordered that Katie was right and the house should be handed over to her. However, the singer claimed that the house had suffered a lot of damage over three years and demanded money for repairs. The parties are preparing for the second phase of the trial, during which Katy will make a case for damages.

What does Carl Wescott say?

Court documents show Katy’s claim of damages amounting to $5.5 million, which Carl Wescott’s team has ridiculed. “This is the house that Katy Perry bought — she is not entitled to a proxy remodel at Mr. Westcott’s expense,” her legal team said in a motion submitted to the court, In Touch reports.

Katy has reportedly called 25 witnesses to testify about ‘negligence’ on Karl’s part in maintaining the home. But Carl’s team says, “As the court knows, the elderly Mr. Westcott has been in a residential mental health hospital for dementia since September 2021. This court would have ruled that Mr. Westcott must sell his home, but Katie Before allowing Perry to pay only $9 million of the agreed $15 million price to a sick old man, Mr. Westcott is entitled to the right to conduct discovery and prepare for the trial of the case in light of Katy Perry’s new army of expert witnesses .

Since the news came out, the internet has not been kind to Katy Perry, with many comments saying that she was ‘exploiting’ Karl. Some argued for him and his legal team to be more respectful of the aging war veteran. However, others defended the singer, saying that the court found that she was right and that she should get her due.