A court hearing is set Monday on whether accused killer Nick Reiner will be able to access his trust to pay his legal defense for the fatal stabbings of his parents — acclaimed filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Reiner — in December.
The dispute hinges on California’s so-called “slayer statute,” which dictates that a person cannot receive an inheritance from the death of someone they intentionally killed.
Further complicating matters, Nick Reiner is considered innocent until proven guilty. A pretrial hearing is set for Sept. 15.
Nick Reiner entered a not guilty plea in Los Angeles Superior Court Wednesday after a grand jury indictment was unsealed against the actor-director’s youngest son.
The indictment replaced the case filed Dec. 16 against Nick Reiner, who is charged with the slayings of his 78-year-old father and 70-year-old mother, who were found dead about 3:30 p.m. Dec. 14 in the couple’s Brentwood home in the 200 block of Chadbourne Avenue.
The murder charges include the special circumstance allegation of multiple murders and a new special circumstance allegation of murder while lying in wait, along with an allegation that he personally used a knife in the commission of the crime.
The indictment also alleges the aggravating circumstances that the crimes “involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness” and that the victims were “particularly vulnerable.”
In new court papers filed Friday, Nick Reiner says he never gave up his right to money from the family estate plan when he turned 30 as asserted by a professional fiduciary.
These are funds that would have been distributed prior to the murders.
Jodi Pais Montgomery, the current trust trustee, asserts in her own new court papers filed last Tuesday with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ruben Garcia in advance of Monday’s hearing, that Nick Reiner is not entitled to funds from the estate plan to help pay for his defense against charges in the killings of his parents.
Montgomery contends Nick Reiner, now 32, gave a prior trustee his consent to indefinitely withhold the distribution he could have received when he turned 30 in 2023, amounting to about $585,000.
Nick Reiner says the trust actually asserts the trustee may hold on to the distribution only until he chooses to receive it.
The younger Reiner also disputes Montgomery’s statement that she believes Nick Reiner’s mother told the prior trustee Nick Reiner knew he could take the money at age 30 and decided not to.
“I did not give my consent to any trustee of my trust to withhold, defer or retain my age-30 distribution indefinitely as property of the trust,” Nick Reiner says in the court filing. “I did not ask or authorize my mother to give such consent on my behalf and I do not recall signing or being asked to sign any document giving that consent.”
Nick Reiner says he wants to receive his money along with interest accrued. He further states that to the best of his recollection, the prior trustee never told him the $585,000 was available to him and never asked for consent to keep the funds from him.
The trust was established as part of the Reiners’ estate plan, but is separate from the larger family trust that includes the estate’s assets, according to the petition, which further states each of the Reiners’ three children has an independent trust for their individual benefit, including Nick Reiner’s siblings.