This week on Legally Us, Rachael Bennett, a certified family law specialist and senior attorney at Sullivan Law & Associates, breaks down Nick Reiner's demand to access his $1.5 million trust fund as he awaits trial for the murders of his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner.

According to the petition filed in court on Monday, June 8, Rob and Michele established a "smaller, separate trust for his individual benefit" prior to their deaths. Half of the money was set to be distributed "outright" when Nick turned 30, and he would receive the remainder upon turning 35. However, the petition claims that there have been "months of repeated inquiries" to the current trustee for the money, and Nick alleges that he was never given the first installment.

"This request puts the trustee in a really difficult position, because really the situation is sitting at the intersection of trust law, and then we've got the California slayer rule that's implicated now," Bennett explains. The slayer rule prevents someone from inheriting from, or just financially profiting, if they intentionally killed the person that they would have otherwise inherited from.

Bennett adds, "Reiner is now arguing that the money was already lawfully his before the criminal charges arose, and so therefore, the slayer statute doesn't prohibit him from inheriting it." This argument is based on the fact that the trust is "irrevocable" and that there has been "no judicial declaration that Nick is incompetent."

However, according to Bennett, the trustee cannot withhold funds due to Nick's alleged incompetence. "The law allows a trustee to withhold trust distributions if the recipient is legally incompetent, which is why Nick Reiner didn't receive his trust distribution when he turned 30 in 2023 and the trustee is still arguing that it shouldn't have to release the funds due to him being allegedly incapacitated," she explains.

In addition to the legal implications, Bennett points out another major issue in this case: Nick's documented history of schizophrenia. "Another major issue here is that he has a documented history of schizophrenia, which will work both for and against him in these two simultaneous cases," she tells Us.

If Nick is found guilty of murder, he may face serious consequences in terms of his ability to inherit the trust fund. According to Bennett, "this case is really going to test the limits of that slayer rule. It seems intrinsically wrong that Nick Reiner, if he's convicted of murder, could be given millions of dollars of his own parents' money to defend himself after brutally murdering them."

That's exactly the kind of perverse outcome that the slayer statutes are meant to prevent, Bennett notes. She also highlights Nick's loophole: "I would say here the fact that this was an already established trust, that's Reiner's loophole."

Nick's next court hearing is set for September 15, where prosecutors will present evidence to formally charge him for Rob and Michele's murders. In the meantime, the stakes for Nick could not be higher. As Bennett explains, "Nick can't pay for basic necessities while incarcerated or afford legal counsel."

This case has significant implications for the California slayer rule, which is designed to prevent individuals from benefiting financially from the death of their loved ones. If Nick is successful in accessing the trust fund, it could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

The Intersection of Trust Law and Slayer Rule

As Bennett explains, the intersection of trust law and the California slayer rule creates a complex situation. On one hand, the trust is irrevocable, meaning that it cannot be changed once it has been created. On the other hand, the slayer rule prevents individuals from benefiting financially from the death of their loved ones if they intentionally killed them.

In this case, Nick argues that the money was already lawfully his before the criminal charges arose, and therefore the slayer statute does not prohibit him from inheriting it. However, the trustee is still arguing that it should not release the funds due to Nick's alleged incompetence.

Bennett notes that this case will be closely watched by lawyers and judges across the state. "It's a very interesting case because it raises questions about the application of the slayer rule and the rights of beneficiaries under trusts," she says.

Ultimately, the outcome of this case will depend on how the courts interpret the intersection of trust law and the California slayer rule. Will Nick be able to access the trust fund despite his alleged involvement in his parents' deaths.