Nick Reiner Trying to Access $1.5 Million Trust Fund to Pay for Murder Defense

Nick Reiner — charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner — has filed a petition in California probate court demanding access to a trust fund his parents established for him, claiming the trustee is illegally withholding money he's legally entitled to.

The petition, filed June 8, says the trust is worth more than $1.5 million and that half of it was supposed to be distributed to Nick outright when he turned 30. He is now 32. He says he has never received that distribution and has never even been told the total amount in the trust.

He needs the money for two things — a high-powered defense attorney and basic necessities while he sits in jail waiting for trial. The petition specifically mentions needing funds for his commissary account to buy socks and soap.

"The stakes for Nick could not be higher," the petition states.

Nick has pleaded not guilty to both murder charges.

How His Parents Died and What He's Facing

Rob Reiner — the director behind When Harry Met Sally, A Few Good Men, and The Princess Bride — and his wife Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in December 2025. Nick, their 32-year-old son, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder. He was arraigned in February 2026 and has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors have not yet taken the death penalty off the table. A prosecutor previously described it as an "ongoing process" when asked about sentencing considerations — meaning the most severe possible punishment remains on the table as the case moves forward.

The Trust Fight

Rob and Michele Reiner set up individual trusts for each of their three biological children — Nick, Jake, and Romy. According to Nick's petition, his trust required half the funds to be distributed to him outright at age 30 and the remainder at age 35. These distributions are described in the petition as "non-discretionary" — meaning they weren't supposed to be conditional on anything.

Nick says he's been making inquiries about the trust for months and has received nothing but "a shifting series of excuses and justifications." The trustee's main stated concern is apparently that Nick lacks the competence to manage the funds — but Nick's petition pushes back hard on that.

The petition argues there is no judicial declaration that Nick is incompetent and no written determination from two licensed physicians — the legal threshold required. Without that, the petition argues, the trustee has no authority to withhold the distributions outright. The trustee may be able to modify how the money is delivered to an incompetent beneficiary, but not simply refuse to release it entirely.

"These distributions are non-discretionary," the petition states. "The trust does not authorize the Trustee to condition these distribution points on any subjective assessment by the Trustee as to Nick's intended use of those funds."

The Lawyer Situation

Nick was initially represented by Alan Jackson — a high-profile defense attorney who was retained with payment reportedly negotiated by Nick's siblings on his behalf. That arrangement fell apart on January 7, 2026, when funds were not made available from the trust or other Reiner family trusts and Jackson was forced to withdraw.

Nick is now represented by public defender Kimberly Greene. Jackson said in a declaration filed with the petition that he remains committed to representing Nick and is willing to consider alternative fee arrangements if the trust funds become available.

The petition is careful to keep the murder case itself at arm's length. "Nick loved his parents, and he is devastated by their deaths," it states. "But the facts about what did and did not happen to them are not at issue in this Trust litigation."

That framing is legally smart — probate court isn't the place to litigate guilt or innocence. The argument is simply that Nick has a legal right to money his parents set aside for him, that the right vested when he turned 30, and that withholding it is an abuse of the trustee's discretion regardless of the criminal case pending against him.

The Broader Legal Question

Can a trustee withhold funds from a beneficiary who is accused — but not convicted — of murdering the people who created the trust? It's a genuinely complicated legal question and the answer isn't as simple as it might seem.

Most states have what are called "slayer statutes" — laws that prevent someone who kills another person from inheriting from or benefiting financially from that person's estate. California has such a law. If Nick is convicted of murdering his parents, slayer statutes would almost certainly prevent him from ultimately receiving the trust funds.

But he hasn't been convicted. He's been charged. And in the American legal system the presumption of innocence means a trustee generally cannot use an unproven accusation as justification for withholding mandatory distributions — especially when the trust document itself doesn't authorize that kind of discretion.

The trustee is essentially caught between two uncomfortable positions. Release the money and potentially help fund the defense of someone accused of killing the people who created the trust. Or withhold it and face a legal challenge arguing the withholding itself is a breach of fiduciary duty.

Nick's petition says the choice is clear. A California judge will decide whether the trustee agrees.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.