A stone plaque outside Marilyn’s last home showed a crest with the Latin phrase ‘Cursum Perficio,’ which translates as journey’s end. The only house she ever owned, Marilyn lived there for six months before her death in 1962, after which the property was sold. But 64 years later, her memory still lingers – as the current owners are learning to their cost.
Roy Bank and Brinah Milstein, who own an adjacent property on Fifth Helena Drive in Brentwood, Los Angeles, purchased Marilyn’s former home in 2023 with the aim of expanding their family compound. After a public outcry, a demolition permit was revoked by the City Council, and the property was designated as an Historic Cultural Monument (HCM) in 2024.
But the legal battle was just beginning. In 2025, Milstein and Bank made an unsuccessful bid to undo this ruling, and in January 2026, they filed a lawsuit against the City Council, which was rejected.
However, any hopes that Monroe fans may have for 12305 Fifth Helena Drive becoming a museum are unlikely to be realised. The residential neighbourhood is not in a tourist zone, and recent photographs appear to indicate that Marilyn’s former home is in poor condition.
Now, as Colson Thayer reports for PEOPLE, the owners’ latest legal bid has also been dismissed – but their legal team remain determined that the couple’s plans for the property will ultimately prevail.
“On Monday, Sept. 28, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson dismissed Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank’s challenge to L.A.’s designation of Monroe’s former home as a Historic-Cultural Monument. The couple, who currently owns the Brentwood residence, argued in their first amended complaint the designation amounted to a taking of their property because it significantly reduced its value and prevented them from carrying out renovations.
According to court documents obtained by PEOPLE, the judge found the couple had failed to state a viable taking claim and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The defendants include the City of Los Angeles and Mayor Karen Bass.
‘While we are disappointed by the court’s decision to dismiss, this is not the end of the road,’ Dave Breemer, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, who is representing the couple, said in a statement shared with PEOPLE. ‘The facts show the significant burden Los Angeles has placed on Milstein and Bank’s property, and we are prepared to continue fighting to protect their property rights on appeal.’
The Sept. 28 ruling did acknowledge that the property has lost nearly 91% of its original value. Before the HCM designation, the couple claimed the home was worth $8.5 million, but had since decreased to $820,000.
Milstein and Bank first filed their complaint on Jan. 23 in the Central District Court of California. In it, they claimed to have purchased the residence in 2023 ‘with the clear intent of demolishing the dilapidated structures on the property,’ per court documents. They allegedly spent an additional $30,000 to secure the proper demolition and grading permits — which the city initially approved.
However, on Sept. 8, 2023, the City Council approved a motion, allegedly ‘without any notice’ to the owners, to consider the property for historical designation. The complaint says the motion was ultimately approved on June 26, 2024, against the wishes of the homeowners. The motion put a temporary pause on any work planned to be carried out at the home.
‘Not a trace of Ms. Monroe’s short tenure at the house remains at the property or in the house — and the house has been substantially altered by successive owners over more than sixty years,’ the complaint says.
In the years since, the current owners say the property has had 14 different owners, undergone numerous remodels and was issued more than two-dozen building permits from the city — all done without the consideration of a historical designation.
Since the landmark status was approved, the couple argued it has generated ‘massive tourism’ at the property. They allegedly were required to hire private security to ‘guard against trespassers that the city knowingly invited and encouraged.’
The couple had asked the court to order the city to reinstate their demolition and grading permits, or to compensate them fully for their 2023 investment into the property.”
