Full Breakdown
Marilyn Monroe’s Former Brentwood Home Designated Historic Monument, Prompting Federal Takings Lawsuit
4/26/2026, 12:25:01 PM
Landmark Designation Triggers Federal Lawsuit
On April 25, 2026, owners Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank sued the City of Los Angeles, claiming the June 2024 historic-cultural designation of Marilyn Monroe’s former Brentwood bungalow takes their property. The suit, Brinah Milstein et al. v. City of Los Angeles, seeks removal of the designation or compensation.
Historical Background of the Brentwood Bungalow
The 2,300-sq-ft Spanish bungalow was Marilyn Monroe’s residence for six months before her 1962 death. Fourteen owners altered the house, leaving it in decline. In 2023 Milstein and Bank bought the property for $8 million, planning demolition and redevelopment.
Principal Parties
The plaintiffs are homeowners Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, whose lead counsel is attorney J. David Breemer. Defendants include Mayor Karen Bass, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and Councilmember Traci Park, who advocated for the historic-cultural designation.
Financial and Legal Figures
The Milsteins paid $8 million for the house, incurred about $30,000 in permit fees, spent hundreds of thousands on security, and face over $100,000 annually in taxes, insurance and utilities. Their legal expenses total millions, according to the complaint.
Official Statements and Legal Positions
Los Angeles moved to dismiss, arguing the buyers knew of the property’s Monroe connection and possible landmark status before purchase and that the plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative remedies. The city also says the owners have not shown a valid Fifth-Amendment taking claim. The mayor’s and city attorney’s offices did not comment.
Homeowners’ Critique of the Designation
The plaintiffs argue the designation lacks a public purpose, noting the walled-off house is invisible from the street and functions as a “tourist trap.” They contend the city turned a private asset into a public monument without compensation, violating the Takings Clause.
Unresolved Issues and Information Gaps
Mayor Bass and the City Attorney’s Office have not commented. The court has not ruled on the takings claim, and the owners’ alternative administrative options remain undisclosed.
Verbatim Quotes
- “These homeowners have a straightforward request: either let them use their own property or compensate them fairly for turning it into a public monument,” — J. David Breemer, attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- “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.” — J. David Breemer, attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- “They couldn’t demolish, couldn’t repair, couldn’t build and couldn’t sell to someone who could.” — Pacific Legal Foundation
Future Proceedings
The federal court will first consider the city’s motion to dismiss. If denied, it will assess the takings claim. Possible outcomes include removal of the historic designation, monetary compensation, or affirmation of the city’s landmark authority. The dispute may spur review of Los Angeles historic-preservation policies.
