Heiress and Producer Sue LA City Over Marilyn Monroe Mansion Demolition Block
A prominent real estate heiress and her producer husband are locked in a legal battle with the City of Los Angeles, alleging their constitutional rights have been violated after the city repeatedly thwarted their attempts to demolish a historic mansion once owned by Hollywood icon Marilyn Monroe.
Brinah Milstein, heir to a significant real estate fortune, and her husband, producer Roy Bank, purchased the Spanish-style Los Angeles property in 2023 for a substantial $8.35 million. Their intention was to clear the existing structure to expand their adjacent property. However, their plans were met with significant public outcry and swift action from the city.
Marilyn Monroe, the legendary actress, owned the Brentwood mansion for a brief period of six months before her tragic death there in 1962 at the age of 36. Despite the short tenure, the home has held significant sentimental value for many, leading to strong opposition against its demolition.
The couple initially obtained the necessary permits from the LA Department of Building and Safety to proceed with the demolition. However, this sparked a wave of public outrage, prompting the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission to declare the site a landmark in January 2024.
Legal Battles Unfold: Lawsuits and Allegations
Milstein and Bank responded by filing their first lawsuit in May 2024, aiming to prevent the city from imposing landmark status on the single-family residence. Their updated complaint, filed more recently, escalates the legal conflict, alleging that the city’s actions constitute a violation of their constitutional rights by preventing demolition “without any public purpose or just compensation paid.”
The couple claims they have been deprived of the “use and enjoyment” of their property, arguing that the landmark designation offers “no actual benefit to the public.” They further contend that the home, which is not visible from the street, has been turned into a “tourist attraction” due to its historical association.
Claims of Procedural Missteps and Lack of Public Purpose
In their most recent legal filing, Milstein and Bank assert that they were “regularly not given the legally required notice and an opportunity to be heard” regarding the landmark designation process. This procedural grievance forms a key part of their argument against the city’s actions.
The Los Angeles City Council subsequently voted unanimously in June 2024 to preserve the property, solidifying the city’s stance. The couple’s lawsuit argues that the city lacked a “valid public purpose” for preserving the home, citing that Monroe spent the majority of her time at her New York City residence during her ownership.
A Home’s Evolving History and the Owner’s Perspective
The mansion itself has undergone numerous alterations since its construction in the 1920s, believed to have been erected around 1929. By the time Monroe purchased it in the early sixties for $75,000, it was already a significantly different property from its original design. Over the decades since Monroe’s death, the property has seen at least 14 different owners.
The lawsuit explicitly states that “not a trace of Ms. Monroe’s short tenure at the house remains at the Property or in the house,” underscoring the owners’ view that the historical significance is minimal in its current state.
Failed Compromise and Judicial Dismissal
As a potential compromise, the couple claims they attempted to collaborate with the city on relocating the mansion to a more accessible site. However, this proposal was reportedly declined. Their initial lawsuit was dismissed by a judge in September 2025, who characterized it as “an ill-disguised motion to win so they can demolish the home.”
Fan Influx and Security Concerns
Since its designation as a cultural monument, the property has reportedly attracted a significant influx of Marilyn Monroe fans. The lawsuit details the negative impacts of these visitors, including traffic congestion, “numerous trespassers,” and even a burglary that occurred in November. The filing specifically notes an incident on November 7, 2025, where burglars scaled the property wall and broke into the house, allegedly in search of memorabilia.
Milstein and Bank are seeking a court order that would allow them to level the home and receive compensation from the city for the alleged decline in property value and the loss of use and enjoyment since it became a historical site. Their complaint also criticizes the city for what they perceive as a failure to preserve the home over the 60 years prior to their demolition plans coming to light.
The Los Angeles Planning Commission, responsible for managing historical landmarks, has declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Legal representatives for Milstein and Bank, as well as the City of Los Angeles, have been contacted for comment.
