The world was shocked by the murder of film director Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle, found stabbed to death in their Los Angeles home in December 2025. More horrifying still was learning that their son Nick was arrested for the gruesome act. Nick has a history of mental health issues, drug addiction, homelessness and schizophrenia. He has pled not guilty to the crime and is currently incarcerated without bail in the Los Angeles Twin Tower Correctional Facility. He faces life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted.
The purpose of this post is not to focus on the criminal act or the upcoming criminal trial; certainly there is no lack of news about these lurid circumstances. Instead, we discuss the controversy regarding whether Reiner is legally entitled to the money his parents put in trust for him, and the actions of the trustees.
Irrevocable Trust
Shortly after his birth, the Reiners established an irrevocable trust for Nick’s benefit. Under its terms, Nick was to receive half of the funds in September 2023, when he turned 30. The remaing funds were to be released when he turned 35. The trust is currently valued at $1.63 million. Nick, 32, never received the first half of the funds when he turned 30.
Now he wants it, along with accrued interest and income. But does he have a legal right to it? The answer is not as clear-cut as you might think. There have been several court hearings to resolve the issue, and there are more to come.
Petitioning the Probate Court
In June 2026 Reiner’s attorney asked the probate court to direct the trustees to release the funds he was supposed to receive two years ago, before the murders occurred. The trust is irrevocable, and according to the petition, it “does not authorize the trustee to condition these distribution points on any subjective assessment by the Trustee as to Nick’s intended use of those funds.” Moreover, Nick argues he was never found to be incompetent or incapable of receiving the money, and he never consented to the money being withheld when he turned 30.
Reiner says the money is needed so he can re-hire well-known defense attorney Alan Jackson. Jackson represented him at the outset of the case but then withdrew, presumably because Nick’s siblings stopped paying the legal fees. Nick is currently represented by the Public Defenders Office.
The Slayer Statute
The trustees have pushed back against his demand, citing California’s “slayer statute.” This is a law that prevents someone from inheriting from a person they have intentionally killed. The law states:
A person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any of the following: Any property, interest, or benefit under a will of the decedent, or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent or in which the decedent has an interest, including any general or special power of appointment conferred by the will or trust on the killer and any nomination of the killer as executor, trustee, guardian, or conservator or custodian made by the will or trust.
Incidentally, Florida’s Probate Code has a similar provision. Statute 732.802 states: A surviving person who unlawfully and intentionally kills or participates in procuring the death of the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under the Florida Probate Code, and the estate of the decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. You can read the Florida law here.
But…Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Reiner contends that the slayer statute does not apply to his situation and is not a valid basis for withholding the funds. First, he points out that he has not been convicted of murdering his parents. He has only been accused. Second, he notes that the funds were rightrfully his two years ago. before the murders occurred. He should have received them then, and never consented to them being withheld.
Lawyers for the trustee acknowleding that Nick’s status is accused, not convicted. Notwithstanding, they argue that disposition of the funds should be determined by the outcome of the future trial. “The disputed property is therefore ‘reasonably in dispute,’ they argue, “and the governing framework supports the Trustee’s decision to preserve it rather than pay it out.” Second, they say that if the funds were released now and he is ultimately found guilty, there would be no way to claw back the money.
Trustees In A Tight Spot
A trustee is a fiduciary, required to uphold the terms of the trust and bound to the highest ethical standards. This extraordinary case presents the trustee with unique challenges. The trustee has already been criticized by Reiner’s team for spending $200,000 of the trust money on attorneys in order to block his access to the trust. If the trustee does disburse half of the trust money to him per his request and he is later convicted, the trustee will have effectively financed a murderer’s defense. Then again, there is merit in the argument that he is innocent until proven guilty. Talk about a lose-lose situation. The judge in the case has said he needs more time to review the facts, and the next hearing is scheduled for October 23.
Anyone with an interest in estate planning issues will certainly want to follow the twists and turns as this unusual and tragic case makes its way through the courts.
