Los Angeles Addresses Legal Challenge Over Potential Demolition of Marilyn Monroe’s Former Home

In an attempt to dismiss a federal lawsuit, Los Angeles city officials have labeled the legal challenge from the owners of Marilyn Monroe’s former residence as unfounded and “premature.”

Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank acquired the iconic Brentwood estate for slightly over $8 million in 2023. Following the purchase, they successfully secured city approval to demolish the existing structure and initiate new construction, as detailed in court documents reviewed by The Post.

Despite this approval, the homeowners allege that the city intervened in 2024 to designate the property as a “Historical-Cultural Monument” after demolition permits were granted.

In response, Milstein and Bank filed a lawsuit against the city, arguing that the historical designation has effectively rendered their investment unprofitable, preventing them from capitalizing on their $8 million purchase.

City attorneys, in a legal brief submitted on Thursday, contested these claims.

They argue that the owners should have anticipated the property’s potential status as a Historical-Cultural Monument. Furthermore, they were reportedly informed about the site’s tourist interest before finalizing the purchase, according to city officials.

“Despite the explicit notice that the Property was a known destination for tourists and a candidate for future landmark status, Plaintiffs proceeded with the $8.35 million purchase,” the filing read.

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

City attorneys also claimed that the designation is not technically final and therefore, there is no basis for the lawsuit.

There are still avenues for the homeowners to challenge the designation, they said, such as filing for a new demolition permit under the Historical-Cultural Monument designation. The homeowners never pursued that option, the city alleged.

The owners claimed that the Historical-Cultural Monument designation caused a host of problems for them, such as increased tourists and trespassers. City attorneys said that argument makes no sense and that the homeowners can still enforce against trespassers.

“The City’s designation does not encourage, let alone mandate, that Plaintiffs provide members of the public with access to the Property. The City’s action in no way appropriated a right to invade the property,” attorneys wrote.

Neither did the designation force Milstein and Bank to waste their investment, the city argued, because the property can still be used as a home. The owners are to blame for the property being “unrentable,” it said.

“The alleged lack of economic utility is a function of Plaintiffs’ own choice not to maintain the improvements, rather than a restriction imposed by the City,” the case filing said.

The Spanish-style bungalow with a pool, situated on a dead end street in the heart of a multi-million-dollar neighborhood, has been a tourist attraction ever since Monroe’s naked body was wheeled out of the home on a gurney in August of 1962.

The owners want to to force the city to let them demolish the house. A lower state court denied that petition and the homeowners are also currently challenging that decision in the state Court of Appeals.