Katy Perry’s prolonged legal battle with a nun ended when the nun passed away

Byron Allen’s Annual Oscar Gala

Katy Perry has been embroiled in a legal case since 2015. The case involves her attempt to purchase a former convent/nunnery in LA, and the nuns who used to live there were blocking the purchase because of Katy’s “image.” As in, the nuns disapproved of Katy’s cupcake boobs and firework boobs and, well, just her boobs in general. Personally, I think that if the Catholic church needs to sell off a bunch of their real estate to settle all of their child-molestation civil suits, then these nuns should have just shrugged and thought “oh well, it’s not like we can dictate who buys which properties.” But why do that when you can publicly slut-shame a pop star and create a million “Katy Perry Versus NUNS” headlines? Well, there was a court appearance late last week on Nuns V. Katy Perry. And the head nun collapsed and then passed away.

In the midst of a years-long legal battle attempting to prohibit Katy Perry from purchasing a former Catholic convent, one of the nuns involved in the case died while attending a court hearing related to the case. CBS News reported that on Friday, Sister Catherine Rose Holzman, 89, collapsed during a court hearing in Los Angeles.

“Sister Catherine Rose Holzman, IHM passed away suddenly today at the age of 89,” Archbishop José H. Gomez wrote in a statement on her passing obtained by PEOPLE. “Sister Catherine Rose served the Church with dedication and love for many years and today we remember her life with gratitude. We extend our prayers today to the Immaculate Heart of Mary community and to all her friends and loved ones,” he continued.

Hours before her death, Holzman and Sister Rita Callanan spoke out against Perry to Fox 7, marking the first time the nuns had spoken to the press since 2016, when a Los Angeles judged ruled against the pair — who had attempted to sell the convent to businesswoman Dana Hollister — clearing the way for Perry to purchase the property.

According to ABC 7, the nuns tried to complete the sale without getting approval from the Archbishop, but were then sued by the archdiocese in 2015, igniting the lengthy litigation process. At the time, the Associated Press reported that Perry reportedly offered $14.5 million for the house, and that the singer’s bid was approved by the Los Angeles’ archbishop, but was still waiting on approval from the Vatican.

“Katy Perry, please stop,” Holzman told Fox 7. “It’s not doing anyone any good [and it’s] hurting a lot of people.” In an interview with The Los Angeles Times in 2015, Callanan said that the nuns were against the sale because they didn’t approve of the singer’s image. “Well, 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,” she said.

[From People]

Wow, I didn’t realize that Nuns V. Katy Perry was actually way more complicated than I previously believed, nor did I realize that the archdiocese approved of Katy buying the property. In any case, now we’re getting a completely new set of headlines: “Katy Perry Kills Nun” and “Nun Dies After Lengthy Legal Battle With Cupcake-Boobed Witch Katy Perry.” Personally, I don’t get why Katy even put up with this f–king hassle. In her price range, she could have had a thousand other great LA properties and none of them would have involved a legal battle with a nun in seemingly poor health. Now that poor, judgy nun’s ghost is going to haunt (and judge) Katy for the rest of her life. I hope that nun’s ghost wanted to see Orlando Bloom naked.

Katy Perry visits the 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' studios

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

80 Responses to “Katy Perry’s prolonged legal battle with a nun ended when the nun passed away”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    From what I recall the judge and archbishop felt the nuns were being taken advantage of by the other interested party who the nuns were going to sell to at a knock down price. Katy has every right to sue as they renegaded on an agreed deal.

    So sad for the way the nun passed but it’s not on Katy.

    • fruitloops says:

      And the nun was 89 years old, not really a surprise that she died.

    • Jayna says:

      The nuns had not lived there since 2011. The court determined that the nuns had no right to sell the property without the LA Archdiocese’s consent. The Archdiocese never agreed to the sale to Hollister. They did agree to the sale to Katy. Hollister never obtained consent from the Archdiocese, and so the sale was not deemed valid. But then that was appealed and overturned . The Superior Court ultimately ruled that Katy had a right to purchase the property.

      • Bridget says:

        The Archdiocese stepped in specifically because Hollister was taking advantage of the nuns, too. The court cancelled the sale to Hollister specifically because she was trying to defraud the nuns. If you read details on the case it’s really egregious.

      • Lady D says:

        The article I read said the nuns had split with the diocese back in the 70′s. The nuns wanted different rules for prayer and other things and the archdiocese said no. This caused the nuns to break away from the diocese. They were then offered the property which they bought and paid for over a series of 6 years. The Archdiocese does not own it, to be able to sell it in the first place. Why wasn’t this mentioned in the above article? I’m going to go find the article I just read about this.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        ” They were then offered the property which they bought and paid for over a series of 6 years. The Archdiocese does not own it, to be able to sell it in the first place”

        ^^^^^^THIS!!!!!

        The nuns bought the property! They owned it. The archdiocese stepped in and said that the nuns don’t have a right to own anything, and anything they supposedly “own” actually belongs to the church.

        It was an abuse of power by the church. Katy is merely a pawn that the church used to punish the nuns.

    • Larelyn says:

      And Hollister was going to turn the property into an hotel. Methinks more “pearl-clutching” activities happen at hotels than the Sisters give credit… if they were concerned about Katy’s lifestyle, they clearly aren’t aware about certain, ahem, “activities” that happen in well reputed hotels *cough* //pee-tape// *cough*

      • EscapedConvent says:

        That’s true. Hollister was going to turn this beautiful property into a “boutique hotel.”

        This convent is exquisite. It should not be chopped up and altered for a stupid hotel. There are thousands of hotels there, and only one property like this.

        But it is quite a story. Have a look at this Convent—there are some pics online. You’ll see why it would be a shame to ruin it.

    • CKY says:

      Do you mean reneged?

  2. hindulovegod says:

    The nuns sold a property they didn’t own for $100k in cash. The archdiocese sold it to Perry for $14.5 million. The nuns didn’t want to give the money back, so they began this PR war against Perry. The real case is the nuns versus the Church.

    • Liberty says:

      No, the Vatican gave the deed to the then rundown property to the nuns over twenty years ago. The nuns held the deed and right of disposal and care.

      In 2011, the Archdiocese decided the property was worth a pretty penny, and with patriarchal Vatican flair, tossed the nuns out and went about marketing the place, in spite of the deed. Enter Katy Perry. Who brought a judgment against the nuns for about $15 million US, and won; the nuns and the the woman who tried to help them by buying the place for a lesser sum at their request, now owe Katy all her legal fees, $11 million US, and declared bankruptcy — this is what upset the nun and hastened her demise.

      The nuns felt they had the right to choose the next owner based on the deed. The Archdiocese wanted the cash. The whitewashing has begun: it was about boobs, hahaha, and silly old disposable women who should shut up like good girls, and die expediently like proper old people ….. not the Vatican’s cash grab, nah.

      • Sullivan says:

        Thank you, Liberty!

      • Indiana Joanna says:

        Thanks for the clarification, Liberty. This is how the Catholic Church does business with nuns. It was the nuns who were smeared, not Katy.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Liberty- While you’re correct the nuns should not have bern kicked out, and the Vatican was cash grabbing, I’m not cool with Hollister either. 100,000 is peanuts. The nuns appear to have been taken advantage of by her too. And I suspect she was encouraging this fight.

      • LadyT says:

        Liberty >>> “the woman who tried to help them by buying the place for a lesser sum”
        Attempting to buy a prime piece of LA real estate for $44,000 doesn’t seem helpful. Sounds like the nuns were being mistreated all around, by the church and their buyer. Just going on tabloid info- it doesn’t sound like anyone had the nun’s best interest in mind. Greed and more greed.

      • CKY says:

        It says the Vatican hadn’t approved the sale.

        The irony here is that Katy Perry was raised very religiously, I believe she was Pentecostal and does a lot of good

      • Christin says:

        Thank you for breaking down this story, Liberty. I tried to quick-read a DM article yesterday and gave up on understanding the “rest of the story”.

      • Bridget says:

        Unless this property is a very unusual exception, the Vatican does not own Church property in the US. It’s owned by the individual Archdiocese – note how the courts have consistently sided with the Archdiocese. However, no matter who the property is sold to the money goes to the care of the nuns for the rest of their lives. The issue at stake is the fact that Hollister is scamming them. Her contract essentially purchased the property for $44k, for a “hotel” that the building isn’t zoned for and the neighbors don’t want. The Archdiocese wants Katy to purchase because she’ll pay the balance, and in cash, whereas the contract Hollister pushed on the nuns doesn’t even require her to pay the balance beyond the initial $44k. So she basically scammed a bunch of elderly nuns.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        I disagree with the whitewashing of Hollister as someone trying to help them, she was taking advantage of their ignorance and attitude to Katy Perry to get the property for nothing plus I suspect the Nuns were trying to avoid paying tax hence the very low cash sum.

        Its sad that they nuns where wilfully choosing to sell the property to someone who was clearly taking advantage over someone who was willing to treat them properly by giving them market value – its a prime piece of LA real estate. 100K is nothing. The nuns were blinded by their slut-shaming of Perry (something they have admitted to – they didn’t want her to have it because of her image and career choice), bad advice and ignorance of the property market. If the nuns did own the deeds then the money was theirs not the archdiocese – they could have easily put the money in a trust to go to various causes once they all died.

        Plus I am not down with the nuns blaming Perry for the court case, Perry is NOT suing them the Archdiocese is.

      • Bridget says:

        @digitalunicorn: I read somewhere that the nuns didn’t have legal representation in their attempted sale to Hollister. She cozied up to them as their “friend” and got them to sign a rotten contract. It’s a pretty classic elder scam.

      • Liberty says:

        You might own a summer lake home, and at a certain point in your life, choose that it goes to a relative or friend. If the person cannot afford the going rate you might choose to sell it to the other party for a lesser sum. And that is your choice. You wish your daughter and her new husband can have it, say, as you don’t use it much, and they love it. You agree to a price they can handle.

        If your choice was deemed improper because Katy Perry or I or your barista decided it was improper, do we necessarily have the right to strip you of your choice?

        I might add that the idea that these nuns were boondoggled because their age proves this, is rather ageist. You can be old, sharp, and very canny. Warren Buffet is 87, and I will bet if he sat at the next table talking about the new stick he is going to buy, you would be taking notes.

        At a low sale price, the sale would be considered part sale, part gift, and taxed accordingly.

      • Liberty says:

        * stock

      • Bridget says:

        Did you seriously just try to say that elder fraud isn’t a thing because it’s ageist?

        The nuns don’t own the property. The Archdiocese does. And again, Hollister is trying to defraud them – they think they’re getting millions from her. There’s a reason that the court has consistently sided with the Archdiocese and Perry and slapped Hollister with those mega fines.

      • Liberty says:

        Bridget: quite obviously I did not state that elder fraud is “not a thing” — of course it is a thing, and a tragic thing that deserves legal action.

        I am saying that just because someone is old, it does not mean they are incapable of making decisions of their own. That kind of old = incompetent argument smacks of the days when women were considered to have soft little heads incapable of knowing what was best for them, for example.

        If Hollister did defraud two doddering confused old people, throw the book at her.

        But never assume that because one party in a deal is old that they don’t; know precisely what they might want. I’ve been in repeated meetings with a few very old top business people, celebs, or artists, and they were astoundingly on point and didn’t miss a thing and basically flayed the few patronizing people in the room who made the mistake of thinking old = out of it. At 21, I was one of seven people mentored by the elderly CEO of our corporation: this man was whip smart.

        So I am not on board with “automatic, patronizing, pat-them-on-the-head and give them tea and a digestive biscuit because they’re old” prejudice.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @liberty – thanks for the explanation of the tax around property. I feel that there would have been a court case around this property anyway, as if Hollister got her way the nuns would have sued her when they realised that she wasn’t going to follow through on her promises with that dodgy contract she had them sign.

        While I agree that the Archdiocese is probably looking for a cut of the sale, they are also doing the right thing by the nuns – from the reports I have read about the case the contract with Hollister was dodgy as fk, there were no guarantee’s that the outstanding balance would be paid to the nuns. So in essence Hollister could have paid 44K for a multimillion dollar property which she could have sold on at anytime for full market value taking all the profit for herself with no legal obligation to give the nuns anything.

      • Bridget says:

        @Liberty: if you read the actual facts of the case (which you clearly haven’t, since you haven’t gotten any of the details correct) you’ll see that Hollister is clearly trying to defraud 2 elderly nuns who think she’s their “friend”.

        The Archdoicese is not looking for a cut of the sale, they have final approval but all proceeds go to the nuns. Not to mention, not only is the sale to Perry through the Archdoicese but it’s also with the approval of 3 of the then 5 surviving nuns. So even if the sister’s argument that the Vatican gave them the right to sell completely independent of the Archdiocese (which it didn’t), the majority of the sisters actually gave their approval to the Perry sale. Hollister approached these final 2 and convinced them that she was their “friend” and stepping in a “saving” the sale, when in fact she was trying to defraud them and perpetrating an illegal sale. She did something equally shady with the Paramour property, which had also been owned by Benedictine nuns and she paid a crazy low price for. The contract that she fraudulently convinced these 2 nuns to sign is terrible, and literally doesn’t guarantee that they will be paid more than the $44K she put down. 2 nuns that didn’t have legal representation because they thought they were working with a “friend”. Hollister intentionally befriended 2 vulnerable elderly women in order to secure a ridiculous real estate deal. How is that not elder fraud?

      • magnoliarose says:

        Interesting thread.
        My grandparents are older, but I wouldn’t try to get anything past them because they are sharp, energetic and worldly. They don’t present as elderly just senior if that makes sense and somewhat intimidating.

        On the other hand, my Mamere is older but not very sophisticated or educated so she could be taken advantage of by someone like Hollister. Not in this sort of situation but maybe in another. Depending on what they said and how they presented themselves. She’s a sweetheart and likes to think people are inherently good and mean well.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if Hollister used the religious angle to appeal to them. I can’t imagine they believed that amount was reasonable without incentive.

      • Bridget says:

        Also keep in mind, Dana Hollister knows what she’s doing. She bought another marquee property from nuns a couple of decades ago, for far under value.

      • Liberty says:

        @Bridget — I have read the facts of the case on several sites, i read about it as it was ongoing prior to this, and I have read PR releases. So I am stating my thoughts based on that balance of information.

        For example:
        One sister noted that “We have an agreement with Rome. It’s in writing and it says if there are any disputes, they are to be settled in Rome,” .

        And: A quote from the Archdiocese’s lawyer Dillman, courtesy of the LA Times: “It is not nice to mess with the Holy See, and that is what they were doing.”

        Shades of horse heads in the bed. So i find it interesting, very very interesting. Not all is as it appears.

      • Masamf says:

        IMHO, an 89 year old death by natural causes can’t be on Katy Perry. The woman was old when Katy came into the picture. Even if she had been allowed to sell the property to whomever she pleased, she would still have died of natural causes, she was 89 years old, not some spring chicken.
        Regarding the deed and property, I very much doubt we are getting all the facts, and I doubt Liberty is giving all the facts, but I stand corrected if I’m wrong. The church throwing the nuns out of a convent with nothing on their backs is not right but had it been illegal the nuns would have sued the archdiocese. The said deed, if it really gave them.legal right to ownership would have resulted in a ruling in their favor. But a ruling against them suggests they either had ownership and right to dispose for a certain period of time which might have expired and thus put the property back in the diocese ownership or the nuns just didn’t pay attention to and/or understand all the fine print in the deed. Either way Katy is not responsible for decisions made by the Catholic Church.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Having done some more research on this, its clear that the nuns did own the property with all monies it made going to them, however any sale over $7.5 million has to be approved by the Archdiocese and the Vatican – approval which the nuns didn’t get for the sale to Hollister. Perry followed the proper channels to get approval, Hollister did not and that’s why the judge cancelled the contract. The archdiocese’s approval is something Hollister would have known as she pulled the same stunt in the 90s to buy convent which she got a bargain basement price. Perry agreed to give $10mill in cash with another $5mill to pay for a new property for the prayer house. In contrast Hollister only agreed to give $44K in cash with NO guarantee’s or schedule of payment for the outstanding balance.

        Hollister obviously thought that as she did it once she could get away with it again – guess she didn’t count on Perry fighting back.

        It will be interesting to see what the outcome will be as there is only one nun left and Hollister filed for bankruptcy. Its all down to Rome making the final decision – will they back the Archdiocese’s approval to Perry or will they back the nuns who were scammed into signing a dodgy contract.

      • Masamf says:

        @Digital, if any sale required Vatican approval it means the nuns did possibly not have sole ownership. It could have been they were caretakers with some sort of decision making abilities but they did not “own” the property. I think it’s really hard to us to argue this case without knowing all the stipulations in the deed but because the lawyers for BOTH parties and the courts pored over the said deep, courts applied the appropriate laws to this case and ruled against the nuns, that sums it all up for me.

      • Katie says:

        I can’t believe Celebitchy misrepresented the facts so badly. I’m going to stop reading this site – it’s fake news, almost as bad as Fox News. Anything to support your agenda!

    • Reef says:

      They sold LA property for 100k?!!!

  3. fruitloops says:

    Katy may have had her heart set on the nunery, but it doesn’t matter, she had the right to fight for what she wants, as we all do. Noone should just give in to church or whatever just to avoid bad rep or headlines, it’s because of that attitude that the Church has gotten away with so many terrible things so far.

    • Jayna says:

      The LA Archdiocese was on Katy’s side. The nuns never had the LA Archdiocese’s consent to sell to Hollister.

  4. Lolo86lf says:

    I can foresee how the media will try to blame Katy for the nun’s death in some type of way. She was 89 years old and she should have been enjoying her last days on Earth peacefully, not trying to control who buys her previous convent premises. Katy had and still has the right to fight for her chosen battles. The convent is located in a prime location in Los Angeles for crying out loud, of course a celebrity was going to want it. With all due respect to the deceased nun but Someone wholesome and perfect in every way like Mary Poppins was hardly going to be the one putting a bid to buy that coveted piece of real state.

    • Liberty says:

      See my comment above.

      • Lolo86lf says:

        Thank you for explaining it in detail Liberty

      • Bridget says:

        @Liberty you have it wrong though.

      • Sunny says:

        Liberty, I read that the nuns bought the property with their own money decades ago when it was run down and inexpensive. Once the property value went up the archdiocese laid claim to it. Do you know if that’s true? If it is so, does the archdiocese have legal claim because of their vows of poverty made decades ago?

      • Bridget says:

        @Sunny: NOT true. The Archdoicese isn’t laying claim to it, in fact it’s the other way around – the money from the sale goes directly to the nuns and their care. In fact, 3 out of the 5 nuns approved the Perry sale, but these 2 ladies in the article were convinced by Dana Hollister to sell to her for a measly $44K (rather than the $10 million cash Perry is offering). Selling to Perry is better for the sisters because it will give them cash immediately to care for them in their old age.

    • marianne says:

      Not too mention that Katy still considers herself a Christian, so I doubt she was gonna turn into a sex club.

      • Lolo86lf says:

        I know. Eversince Katy released her song “I kissed a girl and I liked it” some Catholics like Sister Catherine got all up in arms against her. I read somewhere that a lot of nuns are gay so they should not be so upset with Katy.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        “I read somewhere…”

        Anyhow, if a lot of nuns were gay, the Church doesn’t allow them to be out and proud. Same with priests.

        Corrupt land deals and the Vatican: This problem goes back centuries.

    • CKY says:

      I think any sane person would know that Katy in no way contributed to that poor woman’s death.

    • Bridget says:

      The crazy part is, the two nuns in this story are actually 2 out of the remaining 5, and they actually are the ones who tried to renege on the deal with Perry and then sell to Hollister (the other 3 were fine with the sale to Perry). This protracted battle was not only completely avoidable, but was in order to provide money for these women’s care in their final years.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Interesting. Do you have any idea why they were the holdouts? That is weird.

      • Bridget says:

        I’m not sure if they were always holdouts or if they changed their minds, because this part hasn’t really been reported on, but it looks like Hollister just insinuated herself in with them and that these two don’t approve of Katy’s performances. Especially when you see that Hollister may only end up paying $44,000 for the property if her sale had gone through, I truly think that she was trying to swindle these nuns.

  5. Patricia says:

    Sister Catherine Rose should be sainted as the ultimate stunt queen.

  6. MVC says:

    This looks like the beginning of an horror movie.

    • broodytrudy says:

      Despite what’s going on on this cate, were I Katy Perry i would drop everything right then and there. That is some bad juju.

      • Masamf says:

        I don’t see why Katy should abandon her property just because some nun does. For all we know, God could even have struck this 89 year old nun down as punishment for being malicious.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      Maybe it will be the setting for a Nunsploitation flick?

  7. nemera says:

    Is Katy being blamed for someone’s death. That is ridiculous. Disputes happen all the time. And if you think you are in the right you have the right to fight for it. Even if it is against a Church or a Nun.

  8. Lindy says:

    Yeah, Team Katy on this one. I spent 12 years working for a major, enormous, wealthy Catholic institution and saw up close and personal just how completely unethical their decision-making was. While I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that there was more to it (à la Vatican cash grab) and it’s true that the institutional Church has treated their more progressive nuns badly, I’m still never ever here for religious slut shaming and sexism.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Getting rid of the tax exemption for all religious institutions would clean so much up.

    • Katie says:

      Read Liberty’s comment above! There was a lot more too it, and the nuns were just trying to keep their rights to the property. Katy sided with the patriarchy and sold them out in a huge way, just so she could get a pretty property that she wanted (when she literally could have bought almost any property in LA).

  9. Bridget says:

    Not a Katy Perry fan here, but in this scenario she’s actually the one doing the right thing. Dana Hollister is scamming those nuns HARD. The millions of dollars she supposedly promised to pay isn’t even mandated in the contract – she put down something like $44k and then got the nuns to sign a contract that doesn’t actually stipulate a timeline or even a requirement for payment of the balance. The nuns also don’t have the right to sell the property, though they are the recipients of the money to care for them through the end of their lives. Church property is owned by the Archdiocese, not the Vatican. So basically the nuns are the victims of a particularly egregious elder scam.

  10. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I would love to decorate and live in an old building like this. Love love love.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      It is the most gorgeous property. There’s not another place like it.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It looks fun and is but let me tell you I uncovered many code violations when I started with our place. The contractor said most likely bribes over the years to look the other way. It is old, and the previous owner bought it decades ago and stopped repairing anything for a long time.
      We were lucky in some ways but not so much in others. It took a lot of patience, and I still want to change some things.
      Whatever Katy does with it I hope she doesn’t ruin it.

  11. minx says:

    I’m here to ask Katy to please ditch that hair.

  12. cathy says:

    They are upset about her image but the catholic church backs republican candidates (including Trump) because they claim to be against abortion…. hypocrites.

    • Jennifer says:

      The Catholic Church is against abortion, yes, but they are not (all, at least) fans of Trump. Our bishop has been very vocally against Trump’s immigration policies.

  13. Harryg says:

    I’ve been in that place, at a concert. It’s a very serene place, gorgeous.

  14. joyce says:

    The nuns should have been fighting their own Archdiocese. They clearly felt they owned the property and perhaps they had good reason. It isn’t hard to imagine a bunch of men-of-the-church blindsiding them. Whatever, the battle should never have been with Katy Perry.

  15. EscapedConvent says:

    “I killed a nun and I liked it…”🎤🎶🎵

    I’m sorry, Sister.

  16. Pandy says:

    Bad juju in that property now for Katy. Don’t build on it, you’ll never be happy in it.

  17. Evie says:

    This is an extremely complex case with lots of twists and turns. Yes, the nuns were being taken advantage of and the two holdout nuns were being unreasonable in not wanting Katy Perry to have it because they didn’t agree with her image, career choices or whatever.

    Katy Perry did nothing wrong. She wanted to purchase the property for fair market value and went through all the approved legal channels to make the purchase over the last several years.

    However, if we strip away all the legal arguments, what we’re left with is an unfortunate PR black eye for Katy Perry. The media spin, is: “Katy Perry lawsuit causes elderly nun to drop dead in court.”

    I don’t think Katy Perry is in any way to blame for this. But because of the nun’s untimely demise in court, Katy will be villainized.

  18. Margo S. says:

    Her hair! Golly, she looks like a clown!

  19. Anare says:

    Sounds to me like the Sisters were trying to sell property that wasn’t theirs to sell. Sister keeling over in court is not Katy Perry’s fault.