Katy Perry Seeks $5.3 Million in Damages From 84-Year-old Vet in War Over Mansion

Alleged property snatcher Katy Perry seemed to be playing fast and loose with the truth in her fight to swipe a $15 million home from a bedridden 84-year-old Army veteran, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

Shocking court documents revealed how the aging pop tart wants to smack Carl Westcott with $2.67 million in damages for lost rental income on the Santa Barbara, California, home she bought from him, plus $2.66 million after she was allegedly forced to rent out a different property in the area.

But in a sworn deposition, Perry admitted she planned to reside in the $15 million mansion – not use it as a rental property. Westcott’s lawyer even accused Perry of “intentionally” withholding evidence.

“Prior to last month, the only damages Ms. Perry claimed were $2,670,000 in alleged lost rents that she claims she would have earned by renting out Mr. Westcott’s house if he had sold it to her in due course in July 2020 when the subject contract was signed,” Westcott lawyer stated in a recent court filing seeking to depose Perry for a second time.

“Her claim is ‘unique” to say the least because at her deposition taken April 4, 2023, she testified she did not intend to rent out the house.’”

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, the cold-hearted Hollywood couple’s business manager, Bernie Gudvi, door-stepped the convalescing veteran just days after back surgery to personally convince him to sell the 8-bedroom, 11-bathroom spread.

Westcott, who suffers from Huntington’s Disease, realized his mistake when the painkillers wore off and said he wanted to rescind the contract – but the couple’s agent threatened to drag the vet to court.

Westcott responded by filing his own lawsuit against Gudvi, who is acting on behalf of the Roar singer and her fiancé, Orlando Bloom.

RadarOnline.com has also obtained the type-written letter Perry and the Lord of the Rings star sent to Westcott where they gushed the home is a perfect place to raise their child — and they decided to toss in their dead dog for extra sympathy.

“We are writing this letter to you to express our appreciation with regard to your agreement to sell your property to us and to communicate our joy at being able to call it our home,” the couple wrote before welcoming their daughter. “As you know we are expecting a baby next month and know that this will be the best place to bring her home to and raise her in.”

Incredibly, Perry also wants to hit Westcott with additional damages after revealing — at the last minute — that she had to rent another home in Santa Barbara during the long-simmering court fight.

“In addition to the $2,670,000 in damages she is claiming for rental income she allegedly lost by not receiving title to Mr. Westcott’s home in 2020, she has produced a lease dated August 20, 2021, for property with the address redacted and with monthly rent of $75,000 and claims an additional $2,669,682 in damages for everything from rent to the cable TV bill at the leased house,” Westcott lawyer, Andrew J. Thomas, stated.

Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.

Even more shocking, the greedy singer didn’t even know how many other homes she owned in Santa Barbara County, according to snippets of her deposition.

When asked how many homes she owned, Perry stammered: “One, two, three -- wait. Hold on. Three.”

“Now that Ms. Perry is claiming that she’s lost $2,670,000 in rental income she would have made renting out Mr. Westcott’s home (despite her sworn testimony she was not buying to rent it out) and she’s adding another whopping $2,669,682 in rents and rental home upkeep expenses she allegedly incurred because she supposedly had to rent a substitute house for $75,000 per month since January 7, 2022 (despite the three other houses she owns in Santa Barbara that she stays at ‘on weekends’ or ‘for fun’), for a total damages claim of $5,339,682.

“Not allowing Mr. Westcott to (conduct a second deposition) would result in Ms. Perry being able to intentionally withhold evidence and in an unfair trial.”