A legal battle is unfolding in Los Angeles over the fate of Marilyn Monroe’s former home, with a judge weighing a dispute between the city and the current homeowners.
The conflict began when the owners, Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank, who bought the Brentwood property in 2023 for $8.35 million, obtained a permit to demolish the house.
Their intention was to tear it down and expand their adjacent property. However, after public outcry from fans and preservationists, the city of Los Angeles intervened, quickly designating the house as a “historic-cultural monument,” which halts demolition.
The homeowners have since sued the city, accusing it of “illegal and unconstitutional conduct.” Their legal argument centers on several points:
-
Lack of Historical Connection: They contend that the house has no real historical significance beyond the fact that Monroe lived and died there. They point out that she only resided in the home for six months before her death in 1962 and that it has since been extensively renovated, with no original furnishings or physical evidence of her time there remaining.
-
Property Rights: The owners argue that the city’s action deprives them of their vested rights as property owners to use and develop their land as they see fit.
-
Privacy Concerns: Milstein and Bank have also raised serious privacy concerns, claiming that since the dispute became public, their quiet cul-de-sac has been invaded by tour buses, gawkers, and even low-flying drones.
On the other side, the city of Los Angeles and preservation groups like the Los Angeles Conservancy argue for the home’s preservation.
They highlight that the house was the first and only home Monroe ever purchased for herself, and as such, it holds significant cultural importance.
They also note that a very small percentage of the city’s historic landmarks are tied to women’s history, making the preservation of Monroe’s home even more critical.
The dispute is now in the hands of a Los Angeles judge, who is reviewing the case to determine whether the city’s designation was a proper use of its authority or, as the homeowners claim, an abuse of power.
The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for historic preservation and property rights in Los Angeles and beyond.
