I spend a lot of time reading about “slayer statutes” rather than applying them, which is probably how everyone would prefer it. These statutes exist for the worst cases, the ones in which someone may stand to inherit from a person in whose death that same person may have played a role. Still, every so often, a case brings slayer statutes back into public view and reminds us that backup language in an Estate Plan may matter more than anyone expected. The deaths of Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner have produced one of those cases, raising a question that goes beyond the criminal charges: what happens when the person named to inherit is also the person whose right to inherit is being challenged?
According to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Singer Reiner, 70, were fatally stabbed at their Brentwood home on December 14, 2025. They had been married for more than 35 years. Their son, Nick Reiner, allegedly fled the house and was arrested that evening. Two days later, District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced that Nick had been charged with two counts of murder, along with a special circumstance allegation of multiple murders and a special allegation that he personally used a knife. As of this writing, Nick has pleaded not guilty of the charges and is awaiting trial.
An Estate Planning issue in June, when Nick filed a petition in Los Angeles probate court asking for access to money held in a Trust his parents created for him when he was a baby, reportedly worth $1.5 million. He is represented by a public defender and wants to hire a private attorney instead. His civil attorney argues that Nick should be able to use money that lawfully belongs to him to fund his defense. A lawyer for the Trust declined to release the funds, leaving the matter before the probate court.
The timing may be one of the most interesting details. The Trust reportedly provided for Nick to receive half the money at age 30 and the balance at age 35. He turned 32 last September, so the age-30 distribution was apparently due roughly two years before his parents died. According to the petition, that money was never paid out though it doesn’t say why, and the Trust terms have not been made public. If the Trust gave the trustee discretion to hold back the age 30 distribution, the Trustee may have been doing exactly what Rob and Michele designed the Trust to do. It also raises a harder question than the headlines suggest: whether an interest that may have vested before death should be treated the same as property passing because of death.
California, like most other states, has statutes designed to prevent a killer from profiting from a death. California’s statute prevents a person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent from receiving property under a Will, receiving an interest under a Trust, taking property by intestacy, or claiming certain community property rights. The California statute can also bar that person from serving as executor, trustee, guardian, conservator, or custodian, severing joint tenancy interests, and reaching beneficiary designations on assets such as life insurance. The mechanism the statute uses is to treat the killer as though he or she died first, and the rest of the plan proceeds from there.
Even with that statute in place, the administration does not necessarily become simple. A final judgment of conviction settles the question conclusively, but absent a conviction, the probate court may decide the matter using the civil standard, a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. That leaves the Trustee in a difficult position. Pay to the alleged slayer, and the Trustee may have funded someone a court later determines is disqualified. Refuse, and the Trustee may be withholding from a beneficiary who has not been convicted of anything. If the Trust is silent about what to do while that question is open, the Trustee may have little choice but to ask the court for direction.
The Reiner case will continue to play out in public, but the Estate Planning lesson is already familiar to anyone who drafts these documents: the first person named may not always be the person who ultimately can receive the distribution or serve as a fiduciary. Fortunately, most clients will never encounter a slayer statute, but they may encounter the ordinary version of the same problem. A beneficiary dies before the client. A sibling named as Trustee is no longer able to manage the role. An ex-spouse remains on a retirement account beneficiary form because the Trust was updated after the divorce, but the 401(k) was not.
That is why successor fiduciaries, contingent beneficiaries, and clear “treated as predeceased” provisions matter. Clients tend to focus on the first name listed because that name reflects the plan as they picture it today. The backup provisions rarely get the same attention, but they may often determine whether the plan can still work when life does not unfold as expected.
The loss at the center of this story should not be overlooked: Nick Reiner’s siblings have lost both parents and may now spend years in court with their brother. Hopefully, Rob and Michele Reiner’s Estate Plan named the successors and contingent beneficiaries that a situation like this demands. A comprehensive Estate Plan should do more than express the client’s first choice. It should also give the family a path forward when that first choice cannot inherit, cannot serve, or becomes the source of the dispute.