The Trust vs. The Allegation: Understanding "Slayer Statutes" in the Wake of Tragedy

The Trust vs. The Allegation: Understanding "Slayer Statutes" in the Wake of Tragedy

By Melinda Gustafson Gervasi

July 10, 2026

The headlines out of California recently have been nothing short of devastating. Late last year, the tragic deaths of acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, stunned the public. Now, a complex legal battle is unfolding in a Los Angeles County probate court, thrusting a quiet corner of estate law directly into the national spotlight. Their son, Nick Reiner, who has pleaded not guilty to charges in connection with their deaths, recently petitioned the court to compel a trustee to release over $1.5 million from a trust his parents established for him. His defense argues that he is presumed innocent and legally entitled to his own resources to fund a private criminal defense. The trustee, however, has withheld the funds.

This aspect of the trial highlights a fascinating and rigid legal mechanism embedded in probate codes across the country: The Slayer Statute  -- At its core, a slayer statute is a law designed to uphold a foundational principle of the American legal system: no one should be allowed to financially benefit from committing a crime.  Under these laws, if a person "feloniously and intentionally" causes the death of another, they are legally barred from inheriting property, interests, or benefits from the victim. In the eyes of the law, the perpetrator is treated as if they predeceased the victim. Their share of an estate, a trust, a life insurance policy, or a pay-on-death account simply bypasses them and moves to the next eligible beneficiaries—usually siblings or other relatives.

While high-profile celebrity cases dominate the media, slayer statutes are a standard, quiet necessity in estate planning and administration nationwide. They exist to protect the integrity of an estate plan when the unthinkable occurs, ensuring that a decedent's hard-earned legacy is never weaponized or claimed by the hand that ended their life.  As the California courts weigh the delicate balance between a defendant's right to fund a legal defense and a trustee’s duty to preserve assets under the shadow of a pending criminal trial, the case serves as a somber reminder of why these strict public policy laws exist in the first place.  While this scenario is highly uncommon, I routinely see assets that are not distributed as quickly as one might guess, all because of Slayer Statutes.  

If you own life insurance or have retirement accounts, and you filled out beneficiary forms, you might assume that those funds will be available to your named beneficiaries soon after your death.  While that regularly happens, sometimes the disbursement is delayed because the death certificate does not contain a cause of death.  I've seen this happen several times in my probate practice; a death occurred outside of a hospital and toxicology reports are being run to determine the cause of death.  While a "pending" death certificate is available, documenting a death, financial firms wait on distributing funds until a "final" death certificate is available and lists the cause of death.  They do this to confirm that the insured or account hold was not murdered by the beneficiary.  Keep this in mind if your estate plan uses beneficiary forms and assumes the funds will be immediately available to pay for a funeral or other immediate expenses. 

Image by M. Gustafson Gervasi, 2026 - San Diego, CA

Remember, a blog is not legal advice. It is meant to spark thought and reflection. It is best to speak with an attorney in your home state for advice specific to your situation. Thanks for reading, and be well. Help power most posts with the Buy Me a Coffee icon!