How a Hollywood relic became an $11 million nightmare

What was meant to be a multi-million-dollar investment has turned into a property nightmare. 

At least, that’s the claim of the owners of a Spanish-style residence in Brentwood, Los Angeles. They spent US$8 million ($11,137,408) on a property they claim can’t be lived in, rebuilt, or even sold.

At the centre of the dispute is the short, final chapter in the life of one of Hollywood’s brightest stars.

Marilyn Monroe lived in the home for just six months before her death in 1962 at age 36. It was the only property the Some Like It Hot actress ever owned – a detail that has become increasingly important decades after the house first changed hands..

Fourteen owners have cycled through the Helena Drive address in the years since Monroe’s passing.

In July 2023, Brinah Milstein, a real estate heiress and Roy Bank, a reality TV producer, purchased the property.

By the time they moved in, it had already been transformed. They argue that many renovation permits over the years have removed any physical trace of Monroe’s time there.

The couple’s plan was simple: demolish the remaining structure and start fresh. In 2023, demolition permits were initially granted. 

Within days, however, their dream spiralled into a nightmare.

Under pressure from local preservationists and fans of Monroe, the Los Angeles City Council moved to protect the site. 

In June 2024, the Council unanimously voted to designate the home a historical and cultural landmark. The decision halted demolition and placed the site under a strict preservation framework.

“Her [Monroe’s] Brentwood home, built in 1929, stands as a touching reminder of her final days. A place where she found peace and expressed her personal style,” City councillor Traci Park said during a press conference.

“It was her own. And to her and to us, this home is more than just a brick and mortar building; it is a symbol of her journey and our identity as Angelenos.”

In January this year, the couple escalated legal proceedings, arguing the LA City Council “violated their Fifth Amendment rights” by failing to provide them just compensation for turning after effectively turning their private property into a public monument.

In the lawsuit, the owners argue the designation has left them with a property they cannot meaningfully use. They claim they are unable to redevelop, are restricted in what repairs they can undertake and are stuck with a home that lacks function.

“The Property has had 14 owners since Ms Monroe’s death in 1962 and since 1962 the City has issued over a dozen permits for various remodels of the house,” the legal documents states.

“There is not a single piece of the house that includes any physical evidence Ms Monroe ever spent a day at the house, not a piece of furniture, not a paint chip, not a carpet, nothing.”

Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) – a nonprofit public interest law firm – has also joined the legal fight.

“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,” a PLF spokesperson said in a press release per the New York Post.

The couple even offered to pay to relocate the home so it could be turned into a public museum elsewhere, but the city refused. 

“These homeowners have a straightforward request: either let them use their own property or compensate them fairly for turning it into a public monument,” PLF lawyer J David Breemer said.

“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.”

The owners are currently paying more than US$100,000 ($139,217) a year in taxes, insurance and utilities, alongside legal fees and added security to deter trespassers, The Post reports. 

They also claim the designation has turned their private residence into a tourist attraction, despite the home not being visible from the street.

The City of Los Angeles has pushed back, arguing the buyers were aware of the home’s cultural significance and the possibility of heritage protection when they purchased it.