California's Slayer Statute and What It Means for Your Estate
What Happened
A criminal case involving Nick Reiner, accused of killing his parents, has drawn national attention to California's slayer statute and how it interacts with trust distributions. According to reporting by The Hollywood Reporter, Nick Reiner stands accused — but has not been convicted — of killing his parents. He requested access to funds held in a trust his parents created for him, citing the need to pay his criminal defense attorneys. The trustee denied that request, citing California's slayer statute as the basis for blocking the distribution.
California's slayer statute prevents a person who feloniously and intentionally kills a decedent from inheriting any property, interest, or benefit under a will or a trust created by or for the benefit of that decedent. The statute operates as a bright-line rule: a person accused or convicted of intentional, felonious killing loses access to assets they would otherwise receive through inheritance or trust distributions. The case raises a broader question about how different states handle the same fundamental public policy concern — that a person should not profit from another person's death.
The case drew additional commentary from New York estate litigators, who noted that New York does not have a codified slayer statute. Instead, New York relies on a common-law slayer rule that traces back to the 1889 Court of Appeals decision in Riggs v. Palmer. That decision established the foundational principle that no person should profit from their own wrong or acquire property through their own crime. New York courts have continued to apply and refine this principle through case law ever since, including in contested situations involving mental health defenses.
What It Means
For California residents, the Reiner case illustrates that slayer statutes reach beyond wills. California's slayer statute applies to trusts, wills, and other estate planning instruments, meaning a person found to have feloniously and intentionally killed a decedent loses access to any interest or benefit under those documents. This is a critical distinction for families building estate plans. A revocable living trust does not insulate a beneficiary from slayer statute consequences. The same public policy that bars a killer from inheriting through probate also bars access to trust assets.
The case also highlights how California's statutory approach differs from common-law frameworks used in other states. California codified its slayer rule into statute, creating a clear, written standard that trustees and courts can apply consistently. New York, by contrast, relies on judge-made law developed over more than a century. Both approaches reach similar outcomes in clear cases, but the statutory approach reduces ambiguity for trustees who must decide whether to make a distribution while criminal proceedings remain pending. In the Reiner case, the trustee acted on the statute's plain language before any conviction occurred, demonstrating that the statute's reach extends to the period of accusation and pending criminal charges, not just after a final verdict.
The case also raises questions about how trust documents interact with slayer rules during the period between accusation and resolution. California requires trustees to notify beneficiaries of trust administration within 60 daysCal. Prob. Code §§ 16061.7, 16061.8, 16064, 16460Verified Jul 15, 2026View source of certain triggering events. When a beneficiary faces criminal accusations related to a decedent's death, trustees must weigh their fiduciary duties carefully. Distributing assets to a beneficiary who is later convicted could expose the trustee to liability. Withholding assets from a beneficiary who is ultimately acquitted raises different concerns. California's statute gives trustees a clear legal basis for pausing distributions while proceedings remain active, which is precisely the situation the Reiner case presents. Families with complex beneficiary situations benefit from trust documents that address these contingencies explicitly, including provisions that guide trustee conduct when a beneficiary faces criminal charges involving the decedent.
Context from SimplyTrust
The Reiner case demonstrates that estate planning documents — wills, trusts, and beneficiary designations — interact with California law in ways that families do not always anticipate. California also recognizes transfer-on-death deeds for real property, which carry their own rules about how slayer statutes affect beneficiary rights. California imposes no state estate or inheritance tax, which means the primary complexity for most California families centers on probate avoidance, trust administration, and beneficiary planning rather than tax strategy. Understanding how California law treats beneficiaries in contested situations is part of building a complete estate plan.
SimplyTrust provides state-specific estate planning documents designed to meet California's execution requirements. A California will requires 2Cal. Prob. Code § 6110Verified Jul 15, 2026View source witnesses and does not require notarization. California also recognizes handwritten wills, though formal witnessed documents provide greater clarity for trustees and courts. For families concerned about how their estate plan addresses beneficiary conduct, trust documents offer the most flexibility, allowing grantors to build in conditions, trustee discretion, and contingency provisions that a simple will cannot provide. Reviewing beneficiary designations and trust terms regularly — particularly after major life events — helps ensure that the plan reflects current family circumstances and state law.
Source: Nick Reiner's Criminal Case Puts California's Slayer Statute in the Spotlight