The owners of the house where Marilyn Monroe last lived and died are suing the city of Los Angeles over the efforts to landmark the property and save it from demolition. The lawsuit accuses the city of violating its own codes in a rushed process to designate the house as a historical landmark last fall. The owners claim that the city engaged in corrupt practices to secure their desired outcome instead of a fair process.
Marilyn Monroe moved to the secluded residence on Fifth Helena Drive in the Brentwood neighborhood in March 1962. She died of a drug overdose in her bedroom in August 1962 at the age of 36. Fans and preservationists argue that the house is an important part of Hollywood history and should be protected as part of Monroe’s legacy, even though it is not visible from the street. The house, known as Cursum Perficio, is a Spanish Colonial-style property with significance related to Monroe’s occupancy.
The owners of the property next door purchased the Monroe house in July 2021 with plans to combine the properties and expand their home. They argue that the house has been substantially altered since 1962 and lacks physical evidence of Monroe’s occupancy. The city had issued a demolition permit for the property, but city staff and Councilwoman Traci Park arranged for the City Council to begin the designation process, temporarily halting the demolition permit.
The designation of the house as a historical landmark has raised concerns for the owners about increased tourism on the private road. Tourists frequently stop in front of the house to leave flowers or take pictures, despite the property not being visible from the street. The owners have offered to relocate the house and have secured the support of Authentic Brands Group, which controls Monroe’s estate. However, the Brentwood Community Council and other homeowners associations oppose the designation and support relocating the house.
The owners of the property are hoping to restore their right to demolish the house and proceed with their plans to combine the properties and expand their home. They argue that the house has undergone multiple alterations over the years and lacks physical evidence of Monroe’s occupancy. The lawsuit claims that the city engaged in a rushed and corrupt process to secure the house’s designation as a historical landmark, instead of following a fair and neutral process. The owners have the backing of Monroe’s estate and other organizations in their efforts to relocate the house and oppose the city’s plans for preservation.
