At the end of a quiet cul-de-sac in Brentwood, on 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, sits a modest Spanish Colonial-style hacienda that has become the improbable epicenter of a bitter legal battle over heritage, ownership, and the culture of preservation in Los Angeles. Built in 1929, the 2,900-square-foot adobe-style home entered Hollywood lore when Marilyn Monroe bought it in February 1962 — the only residence the actress ever owned — a purchase she financed after her third marriage and where, six months later, she was discovered dead of a barbiturate overdose in her bedroom at age 36. Around the doorstep sits a tile reading “Cursum Perficio” — “The journey ends here” — a poignant message that has become eerily resonant through decades of debate over the house’s fate.
By Allan R. Ellenberger
For decades the house stood largely unremarked upon in its affluent neighborhood, passing through multiple owners and undergoing renovations that altered interior spaces but left its external character intact. In 2017 the property changed hands for roughly $7.25 million, and in the summer of 2023 a sale for about $8.35 million to a trust controlled by real estate figures seemed likely to secure another chapter in its quiet existence — until word leaked that the new owners intended to tear it down and build a much larger residence in its place. The permit to demolish the structure triggered outrage from preservationists, Monroe fans, and local historians who saw the house not merely as real estate but as a touchstone to the life, legacy, and tragic final months of one of Hollywood’s most iconic figures.
Plans to demolish the house were quickly challenged after the permit became public late in 2023. Preservationists including those from the Los Angeles Conservancy and community members began pushing to designate the house as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument to protect it from demolition. A landmark designation would safeguard the property from being leveled by subjecting the property to additional reviews before major changes are approved. Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the district where the house is located, spearheaded preservation efforts for the house. She stated that allowing it to be demolished would negatively impact historic preservation efforts in Los Angeles, where less than three percent of cultural monuments are related to women's history.
Both the city's Cultural Heritage Commission and eventually the City Council relented. Following hearings, reports and testimony from the public, the council voted unanimously in June 2024 to declare Monroe's former home a historic cultural monument. This designation stopped demolition plans on the property and served as a message that the city deemed Monroe's former home to be a valuable piece of local and national cultural history. Proponents stated that many now-iconic photographs of Monroe were taken on the property, and her ownership of the home however brief still linked it inextricably to Monroe herself and the history of Hollywood's Golden Age.
The designation, however, did not settle the matter — it merely moved it into the judicial system. Brinah Milstein — a real estate heiress — and her husband Roy Bank, a television producer who had executive produced reality television series such as The Apprentice and Survivor, fought back with an all-out legal attack. In May 2024 they sued in Los Angeles Superior Court asking for a preliminary injunction that would void the historic designation and reactivate their demolition permit, claiming that the city's actions had illegally taken away their right to use and enjoy their property, and that placing historic status on the house had caused "irreparable harm" without providing just compensation. The judge rejected their request in September 2025, stating that their lawsuit was basically an attempt to remove the house's historic designation outright.
Unhappy with this outcome, Milstein and Bank filed suit again in federal court in early 2026, this time including the city and Mayor Karen Bass as defendants and framing their complaint in constitutional terms. In it, they argue that the house was designated historic without due compensation, infringing on their property rights under the Fifth Amendment, that the house offers little historic value beyond its association with Monroe and is being used as a "public nuisance" in light of its status as a private residence, and that the house itself is little like it was during Monroe's residency due to years of improvements and modifications. They have also complained of heightened public scrutiny as a result of the designation: visitors trespassing across their property boundary and visitors coming onto the property without permission, including an alleged burglary in November 2025.
Preservationists, on the other hand, see the lawsuit as a stark illustration of the ongoing struggle between private property rights and the public interest in safeguarding cultural memory. They note that Monroe’s tenure in the home, albeit brief, is punctuated by its being her only owned residence and the site of her death — an event that cemented her place in Hollywood lore. The Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and later the City Council evaluated the house not purely on architectural merit but on the strength of that associative significance, concluding that the home is “associated with the lives of historic personages important to national, state, city, or local history” and therefore qualifies for preservation.
The tension at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive resonates with larger debates about how a city like Los Angeles — whose identity is deeply tied to the entertainment industry and its icons — manages its built environment.
Critics of the Milstein-Bank position argue that Los Angeles has too often ceded pieces of its history to development, erasing structures tied to women’s contributions or cultural milestones in favor of luxury redevelopment. They point out that turning a site into a historical cultural monument does not necessarily prevent alterations; rather, it inserts a layer of review and public consideration that acts as a counterweight to unfettered demolition in the name of progress.
At issue now is a court case that may set precedent regarding historic preservation and property rights in Los Angeles. The house will remain safeguarded while the pending litigation continues, but under its historic designation. My own opinion is one that I believe many involved in historic preservation share. This home is worth saving because it was Marilyn Monroe's home. Beyond that though, it's symbolic of why we should save as many reminders of our past here in Los Angeles as possible. A city where change seems to mean sweeping away anything that gives the city character and replaces it with cookie cutter franchises. Save what you can while you can because once it's gone... it's gone. If you want a big house, build it on some green field with no history.
If you enjoyed this article, I invite you to leave a quick comment or rating below and share it with a friend or group who cares about Hollywood’s past and present.
Add comment
Comments