Katy Perry has had her fair share of legal entanglements, particularly concerning property disputes. One notable case occurred in 2015 when Perry found herself in a legal battle with a group of nuns. The nuns had attempted to prevent Perry from purchasing their convent, leading to a lawsuit that garnered significant media attention. This case was one of several legal issues Perry has faced involving real estate transactions over the years.
More recently, Katy Perry and her fiancé, Orlando Bloom, found themselves in legal proceedings related to the sale of their Santa Barbara home. The former owner of the property claimed that he was not in the proper state of mind to complete the sale due to his deteriorating health and alleged that he was pressured into selling the home to Perry and Bloom. This dispute highlighted ongoing legal challenges related to their real estate transactions.
Legal Battle with Nuns
Katy Perry’s legal issues with a group of nuns stem from her attempt to purchase their former convent in Los Angeles. According to the New York Times, the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary had acquired the property in 1972 from businessman Daniel Donohue. However, in 2011, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles relocated the remaining nuns against their will, as reported by Billboard.
Years later, Archbishop Jose Gomez agreed to sell the property to Perry without consulting the nuns. Perry, who has a religious background, made a substantial cash offer of $14.5 million, which Gomez accepted.
Upon learning of Perry’s interest in buying their former home, two of the nuns conducted their own research on the singer. They were reportedly dismayed by her past interviews and performances. In an effort to bridge the gap, Perry met with the two nuns in 2015, singing the gospel song “Oh Happy Day” and displaying her “Jesus” tattoo on her wrist to show her religious commitment. Despite these gestures, the legal dispute continued as the nuns opposed the sale.
Before Katy Perry could finalize the purchase of the convent with Archbishop Gomez, the nuns, who believed they still owned the property, decided to sell it to restaurateur and developer Dana Hollister. After the deed was transferred, Perry and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against the nuns and Hollister. The legal battle culminated in a ruling that invalidated Hollister’s purchase, siding with Perry and affirming the sale agreement with the Archdiocese.
In 2017, Katy Perry won the right to purchase the convent, but the transaction required final approval from the Vatican due to the property’s value exceeding $7.5 million. According to Billboard, the Vatican delayed its approval, demanding that Perry find a replacement for the convent’s House of Prayer before proceeding.
That same year, a jury determined that Dana Hollister had intentionally interfered with Perry’s purchase. Hollister was ordered to pay $3.47 million in attorney fees to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and $1.57 million in fees to Perry’s company. She was found guilty of malice and fraud. Following the ruling, Hollister declared bankruptcy.
Despite winning the legal battle, Perry ultimately decided not to move forward with the purchase of the convent, bringing an end to a complex and contentious dispute.
‘Dark Horse’ Copyright Lawsuit
In 2014, Christian hip-hop artist Flame (born Marcus Gray) filed a lawsuit against Katy Perry, alleging that her 2014 hit “Dark Horse” plagiarized an eight-note riff from his 2008 song “Joyful Noise.” The case centered on claims of copyright infringement.
The lawsuit went to trial five years later. During the proceedings, Perry took the stand and even performed “Dark Horse” live after technical difficulties prevented the jury from hearing the song through the courtroom’s audio system. Producer Dr. Luke, who worked with Perry on the track, also testified, maintaining that neither he nor Perry had heard Flame’s song prior to the lawsuit.
The jury ultimately ruled in favor of Flame, finding Perry liable for infringement. Perry and the other defendants were ordered to pay Flame $2.78 million. Perry appealed the decision, and in 2020, she achieved a legal victory when a judge overturned the verdict. The judge ruled that the eight-note riff, or “ostinato,” lacked the “quantum of originality” necessary for copyright protection. Flame’s subsequent appeal was rejected by a federal appeals court in 2022, which upheld Perry’s victory.
Katy Perry vs. Katie Perry
In 2019, Australian designer Katie Perry, who is also known as Katie Taylor following her marriage, sued Katy Perry for trademark infringement. Taylor, who had been selling clothing under her birth name since 2007, alleged that Perry’s tour merchandise violated a trademark she owned.
Previously, Katy Perry had attempted to invalidate Taylor’s trademark, but her efforts were unsuccessful as a judge dismissed the challenge. In 2023, the legal dispute came to a head when a judge ruled in favor of Taylor, marking a significant loss for Perry in the trademark battle.