Potentially—but not because of an accusation or indictment alone. California law can bar a person who feloniously and intentionally kills a decedent from receiving certain benefits under that person’s will or trust. The law also allows a civil court to determine whether the rule applies even without a final criminal judgment. In Nick Reiner’s separate dispute over trust distributions, the answer may depend on the trust’s terms, when the money became due, and what a court finds. As of October 8, 2026, the available reporting did not establish a final ruling on his renewed request.
What California’s slayer statute does
California Probate Code § 250(a) says that a person who “feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent” is not entitled to specified property benefits. The list includes benefits under a will or trust, inheritance through intestate succession, and certain other interests. Under § 250(b), covered property generally passes as if that person had died before the decedent.
This is a rule about entitlement to particular property, not a finding about anyone’s guilt. Whether it applies to a disputed trust payment depends on the law and the facts concerning that payment.
Does someone have to be convicted first?
No. California Probate Code § 254 allows the relevant facts to be established through a final criminal judgment. If there is no such judgment, the statute also provides for a civil proceeding in which the facts may be determined by a preponderance of the evidence—the standard of whether something is more likely than not. The section also addresses acquittals and findings of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
That means an indictment does not itself trigger forfeiture, but a criminal conviction is not the only route to a slayer-rule determination. The criminal case and the probate question are distinct proceedings with different purposes and standards.
| Proceeding | Question | Relevant standard or effect |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal case | Has the prosecution proved the charged crime? | Criminal procedure applies. The charges are allegations unless and until proven in court. |
| Slayer-rule determination | Does the statute bar a person from receiving the particular property benefit? | Under California Probate Code § 254, a final criminal judgment may establish the facts; absent one, a civil court may determine them under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. |
Related provisions, including §§ 253 and 255, address other covered killings and burdens of proof. Their existence does not determine how the statute applies to a particular trust or claim.
What is disputed about Nick Reiner’s trust money
According to the Associated Press on June 9, 2026, Reiner petitioned for money from a trust his parents established for him. He reportedly argued that trustees had withheld distributions he was entitled to receive and that he needed funds for his criminal defense. The AP reported that the petition described individual trusts for Reiner and his siblings, separate from a larger family trust. The reported description of the arrangement is not a substitute for the trust instrument itself.
The Los Angeles Times reported on September 22, 2026, that Reiner sought $558,000 he said should have been distributed three years earlier. The trustees invoked the slayer statute; Reiner’s position, as reported, was that the money had become due before his parents died. Those are opposing claims, not court findings.
Rank #3
The timing and nature of the claimed entitlement matter. A court would need to consider the governing trust terms and the history and source of the funds, among other relevant facts, to determine whether the payment is a benefit covered by the statute and whether the rule applies. The reporting available here does not establish how a court will resolve those questions.
What the criminal case establishes—and what it does not
The County of Los Angeles announced on August 12, 2026, that a grand jury had indicted Reiner on murder charges. The county’s announcement said, “The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.” On September 15, the District Attorney announced that prosecutors would not seek the death penalty.
Rank #4
- Original Leather Binding on Spine and Corners of the book
- Golden leaf Printing on Spine of the Title
- Sewing binding for longer life
The indictment and the decision about the death penalty do not decide who is entitled to the disputed trust funds. Nor does an indictment amount to a final criminal judgment for purposes of California Probate Code § 254. The probate issue remains separate.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What has been reported about the trust requests
FOX 11 Los Angeles reported on August 17, 2026, that a judge denied an earlier request and granted a $300 monthly allowance while the trust dispute continued. A later renewed request was reported in September. The earlier decision and allowance do not establish the outcome of that renewed request; reporting available through October 8, 2026, did not establish a final ruling on it.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
