In January, followers and conservationists celebrated when the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Fee really useful landmark standing for Marilyn Monroe’s residence, an important step in saving the residence from being demolished.
The brand new house owners of the Brentwood property have been much less ecstatic. They sued town of L.A. on Monday for the precise to demolish it, claiming that metropolis officers acted unconstitutionally of their efforts to designate the residence as a landmark and accusing them of of “backdoor machinations” in making an attempt to protect a home that doesn’t meet the standards for standing as a historic cultural monument.
The lawsuit comes from billionaire heiress Brinah Milstein and her husband, former actuality TV producer Roy Financial institution, who purchased the Spanish Colonial-style residence final summer season for $8.35 million and instantly laid out plans to raze it. They owned the home subsequent door and hoped to mix the 2 properties to develop their place, in keeping with the lawsuit.
Monroe purchased the home in 1962 for $75,000 and died there six months later after an obvious overdose on the age of 36. The phrase “Cursum Perficio” — Latin for “The journey ends right here” — was adorned in tile on the entrance porch, although its origin is a thriller.
An aerial view of the home the place Marilyn Monroe died is seen on July 26, 2002, in Brentwood.
(Mel Bouzad / Getty Photos)
Followers and conservationists declare the residence is part of Hollywood historical past and a bodily reminder of Monroe’s legacy.
Milstein and Financial institution disagree. Their lawsuit claims that the house has had 14 house owners since Monroe’s demise and has been considerably altered, with over a dozen permits issued for varied remodels over the past 60 years.
“There may be not a single piece of the home that features any bodily proof that Ms. Monroe ever spent a day on the home, not a bit of furnishings, not a paint chip, not a carpet, nothing,” the lawsuit says.
The home isn’t seen from the road, however that hasn’t stopped it from turning into a vacationer scorching spot. Followers and tour buses flock to the property to snap footage of the privateness wall, which the lawsuit claims is a nuisance to the neighborhood.
The battle over the house has been brewing since September 2023, when town issued a demolition allow to Milstein and Financial institution on Sept. 7. The general public outcry was swift, and L.A. Metropolis Councilmember Traci Park stated she acquired a whole bunch of emails and cellphone calls urging her workplace to provoke the method of declaring the house a historic cultural monument with a purpose to reserve it.
Park held a information convention titled “Marilyn Monroe Residence Preservation” the subsequent day, delivering an impassioned speech whereas sporting crimson lipstick and quick blond hair in a nod to Monroe.
After the speech, the Metropolis Council voted to start the landmark consideration course of, nullifying the demolition permits. The council will vote to formally on whether or not to declare the home a historic cultural monument this summer season.
The aim of the lawsuit is to cancel that vote and restore the precise to demolish the property.
Whereas addressing the Cultural Heritage Fee in January, Milstein prompt relocating the house relatively than designating it a landmark. It’s unclear whether or not that choice continues to be potential.
“Within the eight years that we now have lived subsequent door, we now have seen the property change house owners two occasions,” Milstein stated whereas addressing the fee. “Now we have watched it go unmaintained and unkept. We bought the property as a result of it’s inside toes of ours. And it’s not a historic cultural monument.”
The method of defending probably historic houses has been a scorching matter in current weeks. It most not too long ago surfaced when Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger demolished the Zimmerman Home, a beloved Midcentury residence designed by Craig Ellwood, to construct a contemporary mansion as a substitute.
The demolition sparked an outcry amongst locals and structure fans, who questioned why town allowed the Midcentury “time capsule” to be torn down.
