Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Lipner ruled on Thursday that billionaire real‑estate investor Westcott must repay $3 million in legal fees to agents Gudvi and Perry, adding to a $2 million penalty already imposed. The decision caps a protracted lawsuit that began in July 2020 when Gudvi signed a contract on Perry’s behalf to purchase Westcott’s Montecito property.

Judge Lipner cuts legal fees to $3 million

According to the court filing, Judge Lipner found the $4.5 million fee request – based on nearly 5,000 billable hours by more than a dozen attorneys from Greenberg Traurig – to be “extremely high for a case of this nature.” He therefore ordered Westcott to pay a reduced $3 million, a figure the judge deemed proportionate to the work performed.

Monte­cito home purchase sparked $15 million dispute

The controversy stems from a July 2020 contract in which Gudvi, acting for Perry, agreed to buy Westcott’s Montecito residence for $15 million. Westcott later sued to void the deal, claiming he was impaired by painkillers and could not give informed consent.. As reported, the bench trial in 2023 concluded Westcott was competent when he signed, overturning his claim.

Penalty of $2 million deducted from $6 million balance

Judge Lipner’s earlier January judgment awarded Perry’s team $2 million for lost rental income while the house sat vacant during litigation . That amount was subtracted from the remaining $6 million balance owed to Westcott after Perry’s representatives had already paid $9 million of the purchase price.

Greenberg Traurig’s billable hours total nearly 5,000

The fee request from Gudvi and Perry reflected the extensive involvement of Greenberg Traurig, whose attorneys logged almost 5,000 hours. While the firm’s effort underscores the case’s complexity, the judge’s reduction signals judicial caution against runaway legal‑cost awards.

Will Westcott appeal the fee reduction?

One unanswered question is whether Westcott will challenge the $3 million fee order on appeal. The source does not indicate any intention to do so, and no comment from Westcott’s legal team has been reported.

As the parties await final settlement of the balance sheet, the case highlights how high‑stakes real‑estate deals can spiral into costly legal battles, especially when contractual consent is contested.