A couple seeking to demolish the former home of Marilyn Monroe in Brentwood, Los Angeles, has suffered a significant setback in their legal battle against the city and its mayor, Karen Bass. A federal judge dismissed their lawsuit, which claimed that the city had unlawfully taken their property without offering just compensation.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Marilyn-Monroe-House-Lawsuit-050826-tout-02b6343e6319425c915bf95ea6c14af8.jpg)
The homeowners, Brinah Milstein and her husband Roy Bank, had filed their suit earlier in January, alleging an “unconstitutional taking” of their residential property under the city’s “Historic Cultural Monument” ordinance. They argued that the property was acquired with the intention of demolishing the existing structure, which they described as dilapidated. The couple contended that their plans were thwarted when, without prior notice to them, the Los Angeles City Council moved to designate the property as a historical site.
Milstein and Bank purchased the Brentwood residence for $8.35 million in 2023 and invested an additional $30,000 in obtaining the necessary permits for demolition and grading, which had initially received city approval. However, the situation changed dramatically with the unexpected council decision regarding the property’s historical status, which was approved after a motion was passed in September 2023.
The couple’s lawsuit claimed that no reminders of Monroe’s brief residency remained in the home, asserting that the property had been significantly altered by previous owners over the past six decades. Marilyn Monroe lived in the Spanish Colonial-style house for only six months in 1962, during which time she experienced tumultuous personal issues, including her split from playwright Arthur Miller. Tragically, she was found dead in the home later that year at the age of 36, with her death classified as an overdose, officially attributed to acute barbiturate poisoning.
Since the historical designation was initiated by the city, Milstein and Bank asserted that the move had led to an influx of tourism to the property, creating security challenges and necessitating the hiring of private security to manage trespassers attracted to the site. They claimed that the city was aware of and encouraged this surge in public interest.
In his dismissal on May 6, Judge Percy Anderson concluded that the homeowners failed to present a convincing argument for a “viable takings claim.” He indicated that the couple did not demonstrate that the city had approved or prompted public access to the property. Furthermore, he noted that while the house had undergone significant changes by past owners, none had pursued the demolition the current owners proposed, indicating a lack of evidence that their plans were reasonable under the circumstances.
Following the ruling, J. David Breemer, an attorney from the Pacific Legal Foundation representing Milstein and Bank, expressed surprise at the judge’s decision, but confirmed that they would seek to advance their case. Breemer emphasised that when the government affects the value of one’s property, be it through physical seizure or restrictive regulations, it is obligated to provide appropriate compensation as mandated by the Fifth Amendment. He asserted that the principle of required compensation should hold firm, regardless of the property’s newly designated status as a public monument.
The judge has given the plaintiffs a chance to refile their lawsuit, with a deadline set for May 26. Should they fail to amend their complaint by that date, their case could face another dismissal.
This ruling not only highlights a contentious legal battle over property rights and historical designation but also raises questions about the implications of such status on homeowners’ plans for their properties. As the case develops, it will be closely watched by those in the realms of both real estate and preservation advocacy.