Can California’s Slayer Rule Keep an Accused Heir From His Trust?

By Christina Aghajanian 

The murder case involving Rob Reiner’s son, Nick Reiner, presents a difficult estate planning question: Can someone accused of killing his parents use money they placed in trust for him to pay for his criminal defense?

Nick Reiner has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. At the same time, he is seeking access to more than $500,000 from a trust established by his parents, arguing that the funds should have been distributed to him when he turned 30, before their deaths.

This is where California’s Slayer Rule comes into play.

Under California Probate Code section 250, a person who feloniously and intentionally kills another person generally cannot inherit or otherwise benefit from that person’s estate or trust. The law essentially treats the killer as having died before the victim.

But a criminal conviction is not necessarily required. Under Probate Code section 254, a probate court can independently determine whether a killing was felonious and intentional using the lower civil standard of preponderance of the evidence.

The Reiner case adds another wrinkle: What if the beneficiary’s right to the money arose before the deaths occurred?

That distinction could matter. If Nick already had an enforceable right to the distribution when he turned 30, the legal analysis may be different from a traditional inheritance received because of a parent’s death.

For estate planning attorneys, the dispute is a powerful reminder that the details matter. When a beneficiary becomes entitled to trust assets, what discretion the trustee retains, and how the trust is drafted can become enormously important when the unexpected happens.

The criminal case will determine guilt. The trust dispute presents a separate question: “Was the money already his, or can California’s Slayer Rule prevent him from receiving it?"