Katy Perry and all the poor, unfortunate people who have fought legal battles against her.

There are a few things guaranteed to keep the celebrity news cycle ticking.

Examples include men (allegedly) doing bad things, messy divorces and Taylor Swift, just... broadly. Another MVP of the celebrity gossip world is Katy Perry — specifically, her penchant for rather absurd, unrelatable legal battles.

Currently, she and Orlando Bloom are fighting with a Flower entrepreneur over a AU$24 million, eight-bedroom, 11-bathroom mansion.

If that isn't enticing enough, the home is in the same VERY elite suburb that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and Oprah call home, and strangely involves a Bravo star.

This particular legal issue began three years ago, when Perry and Bloom purchased a home from Carl Westcott — an 84-year-old businessman and army veteran who owned a phone-order flower company called 1-800-Flowers.

Westcott sued the couple's business manager, Bernie Gudvi, who acted on their behalf in the sale. He claimed he was heavily medicated and not of sound mind when he signed a contract to sell them the home for US$15m (AU$23.6m).

In court documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Westcott said he had a six-hour back surgery days before being presented with the proposed real estate contract and his strong medications made him "intoxicated" at the time of signing.

He had only been living in the home for two months at the time, and is seeking a cancellation of the sale, as well as compensation for legal fees.

The case is currently being heard in a Los Angeles court, but Westcott won't be there because he is reportedly bedridden with Huntington's disease.

Instead, his son, Court, and daughter-in-law, former Real Housewives of Dallas star Kameron Westcott, have been present.

"We want justice for his dad and to defend his honour the best we can," Kameron told Radar Online. "He's such an honourable man. He's worked his entire life and deserves to stay in his home. It's sad Katy is trying to take that from him."

She said the family were concerned that Westcott would die before seeing a resolution.

Meanwhile, Perry and Bloom's team claim Westcott was of sound mind during the sale and are requesting not only the home, but also millions of dollars in compensation for rent they could have charged on the property, and money they had to spend to maintain a different home while waiting to move in.

This is a weird enough story on its own, but the thing is, if we had a dollar for each time Perry was involved in a contentious real estate issue with the elderly, we'd have two dollars.

That's not a lot of money, but it is weird that something so incredibly niche has happened twice.

Katy Perry v. 2 Los Angeles nuns.

Sister Catherine Rose Holzman and Sister Rita Callanan in 2015. Image: Getty.

Before there was Westcott, a bedridden veteran, there were the nuns.

In 2015, Perry purchased a 32,000-square-metre convent in the LA neighbourhood of Los Feliz from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for about AU$22m.

But nuns who once lived on the property opposed the transaction, claiming they owned it and had struck a separate deal with restaurateur Dana Hollister.

In an attempt to make good, Perry met with them, but it didn't go well. One of them, Sister Rita Callinan, even shaded her in interviews, with zingers like, "I found Katy Perry and I found her videos and... if it's all right to say, I wasn't happy with any of it."

A judge ruled against the nuns the following year, declaring the sale to Hollister invalid — but the nuns did not back down quietly.

In 2018, amidst a heap of legal challenges, Sister Catherine Rose Holzman collapsed and died in court.

Sister Callanan told the New York Post that Sister Holzman's last words were: "Katy Perry. Please stop."

The following year, Sister Callinan declared Perry had "blood on her hands".

The sale to Perry was never completed.

Katy Perry v. Katie Perry.

Now, thankfully, this battle doesn't involve a house.

But it does involve clothes, her namesake, and a judge who makes pretty good puns.

In 2009, Aussie fashion designer Katie Taylor (nee Perry) applied for the trademark of 'Katie Perry', a name she had been selling clothing under since 2007.

Katy Perry's lawyers initially challenged the claim, prompting Taylor to share a YouTube video asking Perry to allow them both to 'live their dreams'. Perry's team withdrew their opposition and Taylor's trademark was granted.

But years later, Perry used her name to sell merch while on tours to Australia in 2014 and 2018.

In 2019, Taylor initiated legal proceedings against Perry for trademark infringement, claiming 'Katy Perry' is 'substantially identical or deceptively similar' to 'Katie Perry'.

The case went to court, where emails between Perry and her manager Steven Jensen in which Perry disparaged Taylor were shown.

In the 2009 emails, Perry wrote "dumb b**ch" and "this b**ch won't stop", referring to Taylor's trademark application.

Jensen said it was an emotional response, not directed at Taylor personally.

"Katy Perry is an artist. Artists are emotional people. Emotions are what drive their talent," he said.

Earlier this year, Justice Brigette Markovic ruled mostly in Taylor's favour and described the case as a "tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name" in her ruling.

Bet she was proud of that one.

But unfortunately for Taylor, this wasn't the end. In June, she learned that Perry planned to appeal the findings and that she would need to continue the fight.

And so, it won't be long until the Katy Perry legal news cycle ticks over once again.

Feature image: Getty.