The world was shocked when film director Rob Reiner and his wife Michelle were found stabbed to death in their Los Angeles home in December 2025. Horrifying too 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. If found guilty, he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In this post we will not focus on the upcoming criminal trial. There is certainly no lack of news about that. Instead, we will look at the situation from an estate planning perspective, specifically whether Nick Reiner is now legally entitled to the money his parents put in trust for him, and how the trustee is navigating these unusual circumstances.
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, as the beneficiary, have a legal right to it at this point? 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 Nick’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, nor did he ever explicitly consent to it being withheld from him.
Nick says the money will be used to 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, Jake and Romy, stopped paying the legal fees. Nick is currently represented by the Public Defenders Office.
The Slayer Statute
The trustees have pushed back against Nick’s demand, citing California’s “slayer statute.” This is a law that prevents someone from inheriting from a person they have intentionally killed. The California 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
Nick 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 is accused of murdering his parents, not convicted. Second, he notes that he should have received the funds two years ago, before the murders occurred.
Lawyers for the trustee 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 note that if the funds were released now and Nick is ultimately found guilty, there would be no way to claw back the money.
Trustees In A Tight Spot
This extraordinary case presents the trustee with unique challenges. A trustee is a fiduciary, required to uphold the terms of the trust, and bound to the highest ethical standards. The trustee has already been criticized by Nick’s legal team for spending $200,000 of Nick’s trust funds on attorneys in order to block his access to the money. And if the trustee does disburse half of the trust money to Nick 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 tough spot.
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 want to follow the twists and turns of this tragic and unusual case as it makes its way through the courts.
