Nick Reiner Blocked from Accessing $1.5 Million Trust as California’s ‘Slayer Statute’ Becomes Central to Parents’ Murder Case

Nick Reiner’s effort to gain access to a trust fund worth more than $1.5 million has become another major legal battle surrounding the criminal case in which he is accused of killing his parents, filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer and producer Michele Singer Reiner.

The 32-year-old has asked a California court to release money from a trust created for him by his parents more than three decades ago. He says the funds are necessary to help pay legal expenses connected to his criminal defense and to cover basic costs while he remains incarcerated.

However, the current and incoming fiduciaries overseeing the trust have opposed the request, arguing that California’s so-called “slayer statute” could ultimately prevent Nick from receiving the money if he is found to have intentionally killed the people who established the trust.

The dispute raises a complicated legal question: should Nick be allowed to access the trust before his criminal case is resolved, or should the money remain frozen until a court determines whether the slayer statute applies?

Nick’s attorney argues that an accusation alone is not enough to deprive him of access to the funds.

“The slayer statute requires a determination, not a mere accusation,” attorney Anita P. Wu said in a statement reported by The New York Times. “Nick is presumed innocent and has been convicted of nothing.”

A Trust Created Shortly After Nick’s Birth

According to court filings, Rob and Michele Reiner established the trust in 1993, the same year Nick was born.

Nick claims the trust is now worth more than $1.5 million.

Under its terms, he says he was supposed to receive a mandatory distribution of half of the trust when he turned 30. However, according to his petition, that distribution was never made.

In June, Nick filed a request in California court seeking access to the money.

He argues that the first half of the trust should now be released because he has already passed the age at which the distribution was scheduled to occur.

The funds, according to his filings, would be used partly for his criminal defense and partly for everyday expenses while he is being held at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles.

Nick has specifically said that money is needed for his commissary account so that he can purchase basic necessities, including socks and personal hygiene products.

But the people responsible for managing the trust have taken a very different position.

Trustees Cite California’s ‘Slayer Statute’

Court filings submitted in early August show that Paul Kanin, the previous fiduciary, and Jodi Pais Montgomery, the incoming trustee, have opposed Nick’s request.

Their argument centers on Section 250 of California’s Probate Code, commonly referred to as the slayer statute.

Broadly, the law prevents a person from benefiting financially from the estate or property of someone whom that person has “feloniously and intentionally” killed.

That restriction can apply not only to traditional inheritance but also to certain trusts.

Montgomery’s position, according to the filings, is that no distribution should be made until the criminal proceedings determine whether Nick’s alleged conduct makes him legally ineligible to receive the money.

The new filing acknowledges that Nick has immediate financial needs but argues that those needs are inseparable from the circumstances that created the current dispute.

“Nick’s sense of urgency is real, but it did not arise in a vacuum,” the filing states. “It arises from the deaths of his parents, the very settlors of the Trust at issue, and Nick is presently accused of causing those deaths.”

The trustees therefore want the money preserved until the court can determine whether California’s slayer statute affects Nick’s rights under the trust.

Trustees Say There Is No Criminal-Defense Exception

Attorney Lauriann Wright, who represents Montgomery, made the position even clearer in a previous filing obtained by PEOPLE.

According to Wright, California law does not contain a special exception that would allow someone potentially disqualified by the slayer statute to use inherited money specifically to finance a criminal defense.

“California has enacted no exception permitting a killer’s inheritance to be used for criminal-defense costs,” Wright wrote.

The filing also explains why releasing the money now could have consequences that cannot easily be reversed.

If Nick is eventually determined to be legally barred from receiving the trust assets, the money could instead pass to Rob and Michele Reiner’s other two children, Jake Reiner and Romy Reiner.

Wright argues that Montgomery therefore has fiduciary obligations not only regarding Nick’s interests but also toward his siblings, whose potential rights to the trust could be affected.

Because Nick has only been accused and has not been convicted, the situation remains legally unresolved. But the trustees argue that distributing the money now would be an “irreversible” decision.

Their position is essentially that maintaining the status quo protects all potential beneficiaries until the criminal case establishes whether Nick can legally inherit.

Nick Says the Age-30 Distribution Already Belongs to Him

Nick has challenged that interpretation in court.

In responsive filings, he argues that the money he was supposed to receive at age 30 should no longer be treated as trust property that a trustee can indefinitely withhold.

“I did not give my consent to any Trustee of my Trust to withhold, defer, or retain my Age-30 Distribution indefinitely as ‘property of the Trust,’” Nick states in the documents.

He further argues that he never intentionally agreed to allow the trustee to keep the distribution after the date on which he believes he became entitled to receive it.

“I have never understood anything I did (or did not do) to constitute giving the Trustee my consent to indefinitely withhold my Age-30 Distribution from me and retain it as property of the Trust even after I have asked for it,” he states, adding that it was never his intention to consent to such an arrangement.

His legal position therefore appears to rely on a distinction between assets that remain inside the trust and money that, according to the trust’s original terms, should already have been distributed to him.

That question could become especially important as the probate dispute continues.

Attorney Emphasizes Presumption of Innocence

Nick’s defense team is also challenging the idea that the slayer statute can effectively be used against him before the criminal charges have been adjudicated.

Attorney Anita P. Wu emphasized that Nick remains legally presumed innocent.

Her statement to The New York Times focused on the language of the statute itself, arguing that it requires an actual legal determination rather than simply criminal allegations.

Nick has not been convicted of killing either of his parents.

That fact is likely to remain central to his attorneys’ argument that withholding the trust money before the murder case is resolved improperly treats the accusations as though they have already been proven.

Montgomery’s attorneys, meanwhile, argue that refusing to distribute the funds is not equivalent to declaring Nick guilty. Instead, they characterize the decision as a temporary preservation of the assets until the courts determine who is legally entitled to them.

When PEOPLE sought additional comment on Saturday, August 15, Wright referred the outlet back to the court documents.

“We do not [have a statement]. Our Petition for Instructions was comprehensive and says it all!” she said.

PEOPLE also contacted other parties connected to the dispute but did not immediately receive further responses.

Nick Faces Two First-Degree Murder Charges

The trust battle is unfolding while Nick faces an increasingly serious criminal prosecution over the December 2025 deaths of Rob and Michele Reiner.

Nick is currently being held at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles.

In July 2026, a Los Angeles grand jury returned an indictment charging him with two counts of first-degree murder.

Those indictment charges are set to replace the original murder counts filed against him following his parents’ deaths. Nick had previously entered not-guilty pleas to the earlier charges.

The grand jury indictment also added an alleged special circumstance of lying in wait.

Prosecutors have additionally alleged the use of a knife in connection with the killings.

Nick continues to face the criminal charges without a conviction, meaning the allegations have not yet been proven in court.

That unresolved status is precisely what has made the trust dispute so complicated.

For Nick’s attorneys, the lack of a conviction supports the argument that he should not yet be treated as someone disqualified under the slayer statute.

For the trustees, however, releasing potentially protected assets before the criminal case concludes could expose the trust to an irreversible loss if Nick is later found legally barred from receiving the money.

The result is an unusual intersection between criminal law, probate law and fiduciary responsibility, with more than $1.5 million potentially at stake.

For now, Nick remains behind bars, the trust assets remain out of his reach, and both disputes are continuing through separate parts of the California legal system.

He is scheduled to return to court for a pretrial hearing on September 15, 2026, as the murder prosecution moves forward and the question of who is ultimately entitled to the Reiner family trust remains unresolved.