Takeaways
A slayer statute can prevent someone accused of killing another person from inheriting or receiving other financial benefits from that person’s death.
A criminal conviction is not always required because a probate court may make its own determination.
The Reiner case raises questions about whether trust funds that vested before a death can still be blocked under a slayer statute.
These disputes can delay the distribution of an estate for years.
Most people never have a reason to think about what happens to an inheritance if the person who was supposed to receive it is accused of killing the person who left it to them. It sounds like the plot of a mystery novel. But it is a real area of law, and it is currently playing out in Los Angeles in the case of Nick Reiner, the son of filmmaker and director Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Singer Reiner, who were found dead in their Brentwood home in December 2025.
Nick Reiner has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances in his parents’ deaths. He has pleaded not guilty and the criminal case against him is still being investigated and litigated. Under the law, he is presumed innocent unless and until a court finds otherwise. Separate from the criminal case, though, a parallel legal fight is underway over his access to trust funds and it centers on a law known informally as a slayer statute.
What’s a Slayer Statute?
A slayer statute is a state law that stops a person from financially benefiting from a death they intentionally and unlawfully caused. In practice, that means someone who kills a relative cannot then collect an inheritance, life insurance payout, or other benefit from that person’s estate. Legally, the law treats the killer as though they had died before the victim, so the money or property passes to the next eligible heir instead.
Versions of this rule exist in nearly every U.S. state, and California’s is one of the more detailed ones. It covers wills, trusts, joint bank accounts, life insurance, retirement accounts, and a person’s right to serve as an executor of an estate or trustee of a trust. Someone found to be a “slayer” under the law may lose not only the inheritance itself, but also life insurance proceeds, retirement account benefits, jointly held property, and the right to serve as an executor or trustee.
The idea traces back to a basic principle of American law: a person should not be allowed to profit from their wrongdoing. Courts recognized this concept even before most states wrote it into formal statutes. Lawmakers eventually codified it to make the rule consistent and easier to apply.
A Criminal Conviction Is Not Always Required
Something that may surprise many people is that a slayer statute can apply even without a guilty verdict in criminal court. Because inheritance disputes are handled in civil probate court, a judge there can independently decide, using a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial requires, that someone “intentionally and feloniously” caused a death. If a probate court reaches that conclusion, the statute can be triggered on its own, regardless of what happens, or has not yet happened, in a criminal courtroom.
That distinction matters because criminal and civil cases move on different tracks, follow different rules of evidence, and can reach different conclusions from the same set of facts. It is possible, at least in theory, for someone to avoid a criminal conviction and still be barred from inheriting, or vice versa.
How This Plays Out in the Reiner Case
The Reiner case is an unfolding example of how messy and layered these cases can get. According to court filings and news reports, Nick Reiner’s parents had set up trusts for each of their children that were designed to pay out in installments, with Nick reportedly entitled to receive half of roughly $1.5 million when he turned 30 and the rest at 35. He says he has not received that first payment.
After Nick’s arrest, the trustee of his trust refused to release any trust funds to Nick, citing concerns that include the slayer statute as well as reported concerns about his ability to manage the money. In June 2026, Nick Reiner’s civil attorneys filed a petition in Los Angeles probate court arguing that the withheld funds were already legally his before his parents died and asking the court to release money so he can pay for his criminal defense.
That argument sets up an unusual legal question: does it matter when a person’s right to trust money technically “vested,” if the money has not actually been paid out yet? Estate attorneys interviewed by news outlets are split. Some say Reiner has a reasonable case if the funds were owed to him years before the killings.
Others argue that timing should not matter, that if a court ultimately finds Reiner responsible for his parents’ deaths, the slayer statute should block him from the money no matter which trust or payment schedule it came from.
Adding to the complexity, prosecutors and probate lawyers have noted that a slayer-statute determination requires either a criminal conviction or an independent finding by a probate judge; neither has happened yet. A criminal conviction is not required before a probate court can weigh in, but courts are generally cautious about labeling someone a “slayer” without strong evidence.
Where Things Stand
Nick Reiner, 32, was arrested in December 2025 and has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances.
His original attorney withdrew from the case in January 2026 and he is now represented by the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office.
The criminal case has been delayed until September 2026 because of the large volume of digital evidence investigators need to process and an ongoing attempt to finalize autopsy findings.
Separately, Reiner’s civil attorneys are seeking court approval to release trust funds to pay for his defense.
Prosecutors have said they are weighing whether to seek the death penalty, though no final decision has been announced.
Why This Matters Beyond the Reiner Case
Slayer statutes rarely make headlines, but they exist for a reason that touches ordinary estate planning, not just high-profile crimes. A few practical takeaways:
The rule applies automatically in most states. Families do not need to add special language to a will or trust for it to take effect.
It covers more than inheritances. Life insurance beneficiaries, jointly held property, and retirement accounts can all be affected.
A criminal conviction is not always necessary. Civil courts can make their own findings using a different, lower standard of proof.
Contested cases can take years to resolve, which can leave an entire estate in limbo while the case is tied up in court while criminal and civil proceedings play out on separate timelines.
For anyone helping an aging parent or family member with estate planning, it is a reminder that even well-drafted wills and trusts can end up in extended legal disputes when tragedy or accusation enters the picture. An estate planning attorney in your state can explain how your state’s version of the law works and how it might affect specific accounts or beneficiary designations.
Additional Reading
For additional reading on issues related to trusts, check out the following articles:
Common Types of Trusts
Understanding Living Trusts
Living Trust vs. Irrevocable Trust: What’s the Difference?
Understanding the Responsibilities of a Trustee
Living Trust 101: What It Is and How It Is Set Up
Why and How to Change an Irrevocable Trust
10 Do’s and 1 Don’t for the Trustee of a Trust
Understanding the Significance of Trusts
5 Rights That a Trust Beneficiary Has
