Trustee Blocks Nick Reiner’s Access to Trust Fund
Nick Reiner, 32, faces two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances in the December 2025 killings of his parents, acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner and philanthropist Michele Singer Reiner, at their Brentwood home. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and remains in custody.
A separate legal battle has simultaneously unfolded over his access to money his parents left in trust—money he claims was already legally his before his parents’ deaths.
In a recent update to the case, the professional fiduciary overseeing Nick’s trust, Jodi Pais Montgomery, has opposed Nick’s request for access to an estimated $1.5 million trust fund established by his parents to finance his defense. According to court papers obtained by The New York Times, the trustees invoked California’s “slayer statute,” which prevents anyone who “feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent” from inheriting “any property, interest, or benefit under a will of the decedent, or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent.”
Lauriann Wright, attorney for Montgomery, argued in court filings that “California has enacted no exception permitting a killer’s inheritance to be used for criminal defense costs.” Wright further stated that the funds would be transferred to Nick’s siblings, Romy and Jake Reiner, under the slayer statute. She emphasized that while Nick is presumed innocent pending trial, releasing the funds now would be “irreversible,” as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.
Defense Arguments and Legal Complexity
Nick’s probate attorney, Anita P. Wu, has vigorously contested the application of the slayer statute. “The slayer statute requires a determination, not a mere accusation,” Wu wrote in a statement to The New York Times. “Nick is presumed innocent and has been convicted of nothing.” Wu argues that the presumption of innocence should trump the slayer statute because Nick hasn’t been convicted.
Adding another layer to the case, Nick’s petition claims that under the trust’s terms, he was entitled to approximately $558,000 on turning 30 in 2023, with the remaining balance due at age 35. The fiduciaries reportedly claimed Nick opted not to take the first payout, leaving it in the fund, but Nick has refuted this assertion in recent court filings, stating he never received any distribution.
This dispute raises an unusual legal question: Does it matter when an individual’s right to trust money technically “vested” if the money hasn’t actually been paid out yet?
According to Sean R. Weissbart, partner and co-chair of the Tax, Benefits, and Private Client Practice Group at Blank Rome, “Nick’s access to his trust may depend on the outcome of the criminal proceeding, but even without a full acquittal, Nick still might be able to access his trust for two reasons. First, Nick became entitled to a trust distribution when he turned age 30, two years before the death of his parents, but the trustees never made the distribution. Nick can argue that the amount required to be distributed to him became his property, and the slayer statute can’t claw back assets already “owned” by someone.
“Additionally, even if a court determined Nick killed his parents, the slayer statute only applies to intentional murder. So, if Nick can successfully mount an insanity defense, his trust may be his to enjoy,” Weissbart added.
It’s also important to note that a criminal conviction isn’t required to invoke the statute. The probate court can independently evaluate the case.
Court Proceedings Delayed
On Aug. 17, 2026, Judge Ruben Garcia postponed a hearing on the matter until Oct. 23, despite pressure from Wu to release at least some of the funds. The delay extends the legal limbo surrounding Nick’s access to the trust while his criminal case proceeds.
