The recent legal dispute involving Nick Reiner provides an unusual example of how trust law can intersect with criminal allegations. Note that this blog is NOT a comment on the whole case, we don’t have any lawyers who practice criminal law at Delaney’s Law Firm. Rather we would like to comment only on his legal team’s recent claim for access to his trust funds.
A quick summary, Nick Reiner is accused of killing his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner, in December 2025. He has pleaded not guilty and remains legally presumed innocent. His parents had established a trust for him decades earlier, and court filings indicate that the trust was designed to make distributions to him at specified ages. Reiner was seeking access to more than $500,000 USD that he says became payable to him when he reached age 30, while the trustees have argued that California’s “slayer statute” creates a legal issue that should be resolved before the money is distributed.
Now we are not a California, USA law firm. We are based in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
The important point for an Ontario reader is that the California trust dispute would not be decided the same way in Ontario. Ontario has its own legal principles concerning a beneficiary who unlawfully causes the death of a person from whom they would otherwise benefit. In addition, Ontario’s Estates Administration Act provides that property of a deceased person generally devolves to the deceased’s personal representative to be administered for those legally entitled to it. The precise result would depend heavily on whether the trust was created during the parents’ lifetime, what its terms say, where the trust is governed, and whether the parents’ deaths actually changed the beneficiary’s rights.
A particularly interesting question is whether an allegation of murder, by itself, would allow an Ontario trustee to stop a beneficiary from receiving money that the beneficiary was already unconditionally entitled to receive. That is different from saying that the beneficiary might eventually be disqualified from inheriting. A trustee generally has to follow the terms of the trust and cannot simply withhold money because the trustee personally believes the beneficiary should not receive it. If there is a genuine legal uncertainty—for example, because the beneficiary may ultimately be barred from benefiting from the death of the person who created or funded the trust—the trustee may seek directions from the court rather than making an irreversible distribution.
There is also an important distinction between criminal allegations and incapacity. Being accused of murder does not, by itself, establish that someone lacks legal capacity to manage their property. Under Ontario’s Substitute Decisions Act, a person is incapable of managing property if they cannot understand relevant information or cannot appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision. The legislation also provides mechanisms for appointing a guardian of property where the legal test for incapacity is actually met. Therefore, a trustee could not simply say, “This person is accused of murder, so we believe they are incompetent and will not give them their money.” There would need to be a proper legal basis for restricting the person’s control of their property.
Assuming this matter happened in Ontario, suppose parents establish a trust for their child and the trust states that the child must receive $500,000 when they reach age 30, without giving the trustee discretion to delay that payment. The child reaches 30, but shortly afterward is charged with murdering both parents. The trustee may have serious concerns about whether distributing the money could ultimately put the funds beyond recovery. However, whether the trustee can lawfully withhold the $500,000 would depend on the trust terms and the applicable law. If the adult child’s entitlement is genuinely unconditional, the trustee may need court directions rather than simply deciding that the money should be withheld. Conversely, if the trust gives the trustee discretion over distributions for support, maintenance, health or education, the trustee may have considerably more flexibility.
The Nick Reiner situation therefore demonstrates an important principle for Ontario trust planning: the wording of a trust can become extremely important when an unexpected event occurs. A trust can distinguish between money that becomes absolutely payable at a particular age and money that remains subject to a trustee’s discretion. It can also contain provisions dealing with incapacity, creditor concerns, or circumstances affecting a beneficiary’s entitlement. In a real Ontario case involving allegations that a beneficiary caused the death of the person who established the trust, the trustee would need to carefully examine the trust document, the applicable legislation and the evidence before deciding whether to distribute the funds. A trustee facing that situation would generally be well advised to obtain legal advice and, where necessary, seek directions from the court rather than making a unilateral decision about a substantial trust distribution.
The content on this post is for information purposes only and is not legal advice, which cannot be given without knowing the facts of a specific situation. You should never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. The use of the website does not establish a solicitor and client relationship.