Share and Follow
A California couple is taking legal action against the city of Los Angeles after officials blocked their plans to demolish a property once owned by Marilyn Monroe, designating it as a historic monument instead.
In a federal lawsuit titled Brinah Milstein et al. v. City of Los Angeles, homeowners Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank contend that they purchased the Brentwood estate for $8 million in 2023, intending to remove the aging structures and redevelop the land.
Historically significant, the 2,300-square-foot Spanish bungalow was owned by Monroe for approximately six months before her untimely death.
The lawsuit claims that over the years, the property has undergone significant alterations by 14 different owners, leading to its current state of disrepair.
According to the couple, the city initially granted demolition and grading permits on September 7, 2023, before the property’s historical designation halted their redevelopment plans.
A day later, the City Council moved to begin the process of declaring the property a historic-cultural monument after fans of Monroe and historians pressured the city to stop the demolition.
Councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the property, pushed to protect the home, and the City Council ultimately voted in June 2024 to designate the site a “historic-cultural monument.”
The owners say that move killed their demolition plans and turned a private home into what amounts to a public monument without compensation.
“They couldn’t demolish, couldn’t repair, couldn’t build and couldn’t sell to someone who could. The city had effectively turned their private property into a public monument without paying for it,” Pacific Legal Foundation said in a press release Friday announcing it had joined the homeowners’ legal fight.
The couple said they purchased the property for over $8 million and have since absorbed approximately $30,000 in permits, hundreds of thousands of dollars for added security and millions in attorneys’ fees.
Their lawsuit also claims they pay over $100,000 annually in property taxes, insurance and utilities to hold the property, which remains unusable as they intended.
They say the city’s designation has created a tourist trap and security risk with multiple break-ins.
The complaint also alleges the walled-off property isn’t viewable from the street, so designating the property a landmark “lacked a public purpose.”
“The City took no action regarding the house’s now-alleged ‘historic’ or ‘cultural’ status, essentially admitting it was neither and that no public good would be served by so designating the house or the Property,” the complaint states.
According to Pacific Legal Foundation, the couple offered to pay to relocate the home so it could be turned into a public museum, but the city refused.
The complaint says the cultural-historic designation, along with its unrentable condition, leaves the house’s market value “zero or a negative amount.”
The lawsuit, which names Mayor Karen Bass and the City of Los Angeles as defendants, argues the city’s preservation decision amounts to an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.
“These homeowners have a straightforward request: either let them use their own property or compensate them fairly for turning it into a public monument,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney J. David Breemer.
“The Fifth Amendment doesn’t have caveats. If the City of Los Angeles wants a museum, it must pay for one — not force private homeowners to bear the cost and liability.”
Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the owners knew before buying the home that it had Marilyn Monroe ties, attracted tourists and could someday be landmarked.
They also argue the owners have not shown a valid constitutional taking claim yet and have not exhausted all available city processes for altering the property.
The owners previously challenged the designation in state court and lost at the trial court level before filing the federal takings case.
Mayor Karen Bass’ office and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.