Rob Reiner and the Slayer Statute – Part II

Previously, I wrote about how the California slayer statute might impact Nick Reiner’s ability to inherit due to pending criminal charges that he murdered his parents, Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner. Nick Reiner (“Reiner”) has pled not guilty. Now, the legal issues have become even more complex.

Reiner is arguing that he should be entitled to receive a mandatory trust distribution from a stand-alone trust containing approximately $1.5 million that his parents created for his benefit in 1993. At age 32, Reiner directed his counsel to file a probate petition in Los Angeles County Court alleging that the trustee improperly withheld a mandatory trust distribution of one-half of the trust’s assets that was required to be distributed to him at age 30 pursuant to the terms of the trust. The distribution allegedly should have occurred before his parents died on December 14, 2025.

Reiner wishes to use the trust’s assets to help fund his criminal defense. “[A]ccording to the petition, the [former] trustee, Paul Kanin, was unwilling to release the funds due to ‘unresolved concerns’ about Reiner’s ‘capacity to make sound decisions and adequately protect his own interests.”. A new trustee, Jodi Montgomery, has recently been appointed. She has asked to meet with Reiner as she determines the appropriate next steps. Under the terms of the trust, the remaining trust assets are to be distributed to Reiner upon his 35^th birthday. However, the distribution could occur sooner pursuant to the trustee’s discretion.

In addition to the stand-alone trust set up on Reiner’s behalf, Reiner is also the beneficiary of other family trusts related to the Reiners’ estate. Kanin has stated that these trusts will not make distributions to Reiner until the criminal case is resolved.

How does California’s slayer statute impact Reiner’s request for a trust distribution? What are the requirements, if any, for Reiner’s mental capacity to receive a distribution? Since Reiner has yet to be found guilty of murder, should the distribution occur due to the presumption of innocence? And, what difference does it make, if any, that the mandatory trust distribution was supposed to occur before the date of the murders?

Stayed tuned for additional updates!