Billionaire heiress and reality TV producer are suing Los Angeles for the right to demolish the home where Marilyn Monroe died

Billionaire heiress Brinah Milstein and her husband, Roy Bank, a reality TV producer, bought the property in August 2023 for $8.35 million, according to Los Angeles property records. They wanted to demolish the one-story home where Monroe died at the age of just 36 and expand their current residence, which is next door. 

But Los Angeles City Council intervened in September 2023, temporarily halting the demolition of the property. 

“Each detail of the home, from the wooden-beamed ceilings to the tiles she hand-picked from her journeys around the world,” Councilmember Traci Park told KCAL News, the local news station. “The home reflects her personal character.” Park introduced the motion to declare the property as a historical landmark, which would prevent changes to the home. 

“The overwhelming sentiment here is clear: This home must be preserved as a crucial piece of Hollywood and the City of Los Angeles’ history, culture, and legacy,” Park said. 

Milstein and Bank, however, feel differently about the property, and filed a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit on Monday, alleging “illegal and unconstitutional conduct and abuse of power.” They—along with their lawyer, Peter C. Sheridan of Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP—contend that the city engaged in an “unconstitutional and corrupt process to guarantee their preferred outcome rather than engaging in a neutral and fair process,” according to a statement shared with Fortune. 

Shortly after Milstein and Bank purchased the property, they were issued a demolition permit from the city, which was initially held for 30 days to allow for objections, according to the lawsuit. No objections were raised at the time, and permits were issued, the suit shows. They incurred more than $30,000 in expenses before receiving the “stay” notice by the city, halting the project. The statement provided by Sheridan, Milstein, and Bank claims that this “stay” notice was unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs also claim that the city “secretly” worked with third parties, including a for-profit tour operator and local conservancy organization “to assure their desired outcome.” The suit explicitly names…