Nick Reiner blocked from $1.5m trust fund due to strict court rule
Nick Reiner cannot gain access to his trust fund to help fund his legal defence due to a strict court rule in California, according to reports.
The son of the beloved Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner and his photographer wife Michele had hoped to use the $1.5million to subsidise a private lawyer and his commissary expenses.
However, he is currently blocked from accessing the money after a trustee of the fund filed court documents opposing the request, citing California's 'slayer statute'.
Nick, 32, has been locked up at the Los Angeles County Twin Towers Correctional Facility in wake of his arrest on 14 December, 2025, in relation to the tragic murder of his parents.
Advert
Rob and Michele were found dead at their home in Brentwood, California, a day earlier.
The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner previously announced the couple were the victims of a 'homicide' and each suffered 'multiple sharp force injuries' which led to their deaths.
Officials in the US said the pair, who were married for 36 years and shared three children, died within 'minutes' after being attacked with a knife.
Nick was charged with two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances. He could face the death penalty or life in prison if he is convicted.
The Being Charlie writer pleaded not guilty in February this year and is currently being represented by a public defender after hotshot criminal lawyer Alan Jackson stepped down from the case.
Nick had intended on using the $1.5million trust that his parents set up for him when he was born back in 1993 to pay for his legal expenses, as well as basic items from the commissary.
'These resources belong to Nick for his use and benefit'
In a 136-page petition filed back in the Los Angeles Superior Court in June, attorneys representing him argued that Rob and Michele had intended for him to gain access to it when he turned 30.
They claimed that his parents left 'unambiguous instructions' about how the money could be distributed, with the same going for similar trusts that were set up for his siblings.
It was stipulated that Nick was entitled to half of the trust at the age of 30, before receiving the rest when he became 35.
The petition previously filed by Nick's legal team stated: "Nick loved his parents, and he is devastated by their deaths. But the facts about what did and did not happen to them are not at issue in this trust litigation.
"They were a commitment by Nick's parents, in the most binding way the law of trusts allows, that these resources would belong to Nick for his use and benefit."
It also referenced his former lawyer Jackson removing himself from the case, claiming that this was due to Nick being unable to pay him.
What is the slayer statute?
But a trustee has since stepped in to prohibit him gaining access, filing court documents which reference a California law which is known as the slayer statute.
According to Rudolph Legal Ltd, this stops people from 'profiting from their own wrongdoing' and prevents a perpetrator reaping the benefits from the death of another person.
Explaining what the slayer statute is, it states: "A person who 'feloniously and intentionally' kills another person is not entitled to receive any property, interest, or benefit as a result of the death.
"In other words, the killer is treated as if they predeceased the victim. This disqualification applies broadly, including inheritances under a will, distributions under a revocable living trust, intestate succession (when there is no will or trust), life insurance proceeds, joint tenancy interests, community property interests passing upon death.
"The statute requires that the killing be both intentional and felonious. A criminal conviction generally establishes this," it continued. "However, even if there is no criminal conviction (due to death of the accused or lack of prosecution), a probate court may determine whether the killing was intentional and felonious for purposes of inheritance only."
A professional fiduciary who oversees Nick's trust, Jodi Pais Montgomery, is attempting to use the slayer statute to stop him from gaining access to the money.
Montgomery's lawyer Lauriann Wright said in the filing, as per The New York Times: "California has enacted no exception permitting a killer’s inheritance to be used for criminal defence costs."
If the judge sides with Montgomery, the $1.5million would instead be given to Nick's brother Jake and sister Romy, who she is also a trustee for.
Wright argued that allowing Nick access to the cash would be 'irreversible', although his lawyer Anita P. Wu has a very different take.
"The slayer statute requires a determination, not a mere accusation," Wu said. "Nick is presumed innocent and has been convicted of nothing." A hearing in the case is scheduled for Monday (17 August).
In response to the slayer statute filing, Nick's legal representative filed a two-page declaration that he had signed, which stated: "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. 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, and it was not my intention to consent to that.”
"As I have stated in my petition and other documents, I would like for my money to be released."
Nick is set to appear in court on 15 September for a pretrial hearing.
Olivia Burke