Nick Reiner Begs for Mommy and Daddy's Money to Fund Murder Defense

Accused killer Nick Reiner begging for access to his trust fund set up by his murdered parents decades ago Reiner argues he has the right to more than a million dollars and he's gonna use it to fund his defense But what are the odds of that really happening? This is scandal presented by Law and Crime. I'm Sierra Gillespie Nick Reiner making waves once again this time allegedly begging for access to a portion of his trust fund to the tune of $1.5 million dollars Nick Reiner reportedly wants access to this money to pay for his defense because he's charged with the murder of his parents Rob and Michelle Reiner the same people who by the way set up this trust fund for their middle son three decades ago And I just can't stress this enough the same people who created this trust fund his own parents are the ones that Nick Reiner Is accused of killing we've been following this case since it broke last December when Rob and Michelle Reiner were found murdered in their Brentwood, California home their son 32 year old Nick Reiner was arrested shortly their actor now since then the case has seen It's share of ups and downs Nick was wrapped by defense heavyweight atlin Jackson before Jackson stepped down at the time He didn't give a concrete reason, but we all speculated it could have been related to money Since then Nick Reiner has been revved by the Los Angeles County Public Defenders office But he's asking for a change he just filed petition for access to his trust fund in order to pay for a defense This filing obtained by the Los Angeles Times reason part quote Nick loved his parents and he is devastated by their deaths But the facts about what did and did not happen to them are not an issue in this trust litigation Nick's criminal defense attorneys will present those facts in the criminal case This petition neither requires nor invites this court to weigh in on them Like anyone accused of a crime Nick is presumed innocent and he is entitled to mount his defense with the resources that are lawfully his own According to Nick's civil attorneys this trust was created more than 30 years ago Rob and Michelle Reiner established trust for all three of their children Jake, Romi and Nick According to Nick's team he's requesting a smaller trust that isn't part of this larger family trust The filing goes on to state quote "those trusts" and Nick's interest in them are not an issue here The terms of Nick's trust are not complicated and they are not subject to reasonable dispute Nick's parents left unambiguous instructions about when the funds in the trust were to be released to him One half of the trust was required to be distributed to Nick outright when he turned 30 They further instructed that when he turned 35 he would receive the rest of the funds in his trust These distributions are mandatory and unconditional Now Nick Reiner's team argues this trust was created way back in 1993 He was supposed to get some of it when he turned 30 which was before the alleged crime even happened He owed this money Nick's team points the finger at the trustee of the trust A man by the name of Paul Cannon and attorney Now according to LA Times, Nick was originally denied the trust at age 30 because there were questions about his competency At the time the trustee cited concerns for Nick's mental health and all of that And this has been kind of a long-standing issue here as we've reported Nick has had a long and ongoing battle with addiction On top of that prior to his parents' death he was reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia At the time of their murders he was actually living inside his parents' guest house And according to some reports this was so that his parents could keep a closer eye on Nick As he struggled with his addiction and mental health issues But according to Nick's civil attorneys the status of Nick's mental health is irrelevant here They point out he has not been found unfit to stand trial In fact proceedings continue to move forward But even still Nick's team says the trust fund money is "mandatory and unconditional" Regardless of Nick's stability And as his team has pointed out this money would be used for his defense And that leads to a bit of a backstory Now we mentioned Alan Jackson earlier in the episode He's who Nick Reiner originally retained Now at the time reports circulated that Nick siblings Jake and Romi agreed to foot the bill for the defense But then reportedly the tides turned and they backed out And at that point Nick reportedly didn't have enough money to fund Jackson and they parted ways Here's what Alan Jackson said at the time This morning I had to withdraw as Nick Reiner's council Circumstances beyond our control but more importantly circumstances beyond Nick's control Have dictated that sadly it's made it impossible for us to continue our representation of Nick I'm legally and I'm ethically prohibited from explaining all the reasons why I know that's a question on everybody's mind We expect the public defender to step in, they've already been appointed And very capably protect Nick Reiner's interests as he moves forward through the system But be clear, be very very clear about this My team and I remain deeply deeply committed To Nick Reiner and to his best interests In fact, we know when I just convinced we know that the legal process will reveal the true facts Of the circumstances surrounding this case, Nick's case You know a lot's been printed of late over the last three weeks a lot has been printed printed printed about Nick printed about his family printed about the circumstances speculation is in print On December 15th in the early morning hours I was in New York at the time and I got a call Me and my team we dropped everything and for the last three weeks we have devoted literally every waking hour To protecting Nick and his interests. We've investigated this matter Top to bottom back to front What we've learned And you can take this to the bank Is that pursuant to the laws of this state pursuant to the law in California Nick Reiner is not guilty of murder Print that Print that We wish him the very very best moving forward and that's all I have today Okay, so do it that what you will but it makes sense that Nick Reiner wants this money for a future defense Whether it's Alan Jackson or someone else But that also brings into the question of California probate code 250 commonly known as the slayer statute It reads a person who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any of the following any property Interest or benefit under a will of the decedent or a trust created by or for the benefit of the decedent or in which the decedent has an interest Including any general or special power of appointment conferred by the will or trust on the killer And any nomination of the killer as executor trustee guardian or conservator or custodian made by the will or trust and we'll talk about this more in depth in our interview But it begs the question is Nick Reiner even eligible for this trust based on the crimes he's accused of at the same time He's only been accused not convicted meaning he's innocent until proven guilty and he does have the right to a defense And he's up against some major crimes here. I mean two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances for the allegation that he used a knife In the murder some report saying he led to the slit the throats of his parents And by the way, Nick Reiner could even face the death penalty for this based on the special circumstances That's how serious all of this is now. He's pleaded not guilty to the charges But investigators say he murdered his parents sometime in the early morning hours of December 14th 2025 Following Conan O'Brien's annual Christmas party They were found inside their Brentwood mansion the following afternoon and Nick was arrested hours later in the Exposition Park neighborhood According to reports like from TMZ after the murders Nick checked into a hotel in Santa Monica And allegedly left behind bloody sheets and towels in the hotel room before he was arrested outside of a gas station Since then Reiner has been arraigned and pleaded not guilty but the future of his defense is uncertain All right, so the bottom line here Nick Reiner wants money but what are the odds of him actually getting it? That's just one of the questions I've got to ask today's special guest It's law and crime legal counsel Elizabeth Vu Lai who's been with scandal really since its debut Elizabeth, thank you for coming on our show. It's so good to see you and okay, here's what I have to ask you Do you think that Nick Reiner's team made a strong argument that he should receive At least part of his trust fund? Yeah, you know in reading up about this I do think that they made all of the arguments that his team should make You know one of the things that they tried to point to was you know the argument that this is an irrevocable trust That the trustee you know doesn't have authority to just simply withhold the funds He can have authority to sort of preside over it and decide how it's distributed But he can't completely withhold them You know, they had pointed to there's really no other way that he could pay for an adequate defense and You know, obviously this is a really tragic case. There's a lot of thoughts about it But as a defendant he is entitled to a defense and You know, I think they went through all of the arguments that could be made and also one of the things that is interesting to know It is you know one of the things that they're arguing for this trust fund Which is on the sum of 1.5 million is he was supposed to allegedly get at least half of it when he turned 30 a couple of years ago He's 32 and he's supposed to get the remaining part of it when he's 35 So one of the arguments which I think was one of the stronger arguments to make is saying, you know This fund should have been dispersed to him even before you know, these alleged murders took place That was going to be one of the things that I was going to ask you about Elizabeth too because he's 32 now as you pointed out Was supposed to receive 50% of this trust fund back when he was 30. I don't know if it's really clear Why he didn't receive whatever amount that would have been at the time, but I guess I'm wondering as you pointed out like This is the strong argument here that at the point his parents hadn't even been killed I mean, he's accused of this he's innocent until proven guilty But do you think that will weigh heavily on the judge kind of deciding this because at the time he was supposed to receive a large chunk of this money The crime hadn't even happened I think so and one of the Reasons that was discussed about in the reporting of this was that the trustee so the attorney that was presiding over the trust What had concerns about the condition of his mental state? So it's been publicized, you know, he's had mental health issues He's been apparently diagnosis gets a frenic so that was one of the concerns that the trustee had was well If we disperse half of this huge sum of money to him Is he going to be able to be competent enough to know how to spend it and where to spend it? Now, obviously the issue is is the judge is going to know that he's going to be spending that money on his legal defense You know, so I think that's part of the complication too is that the judge has full awareness of what he's going to be spending it on On his legal defense and also, you know, there was reports about him being able to buy basic items in jail that he can no longer afford and You know, I think when it comes to Being able to receive inheritance to pay for his defense that triggers all kinds of rules and you know Issues that we've been talking about whether it's the slayer rule or son of Sam laws So I think that's where the issue with the judge is going to come in to play Okay, let's talk about this the slayer statute or law or whatever you want to call it out of California And this is interesting we talked about it during our episode today But essentially if you are convicted of a murder, let's say of your parents You wouldn't be allowed their inheritance that would just you know wouldn't happen That's not allowed but in this case doesn't matter that he has yet to be convicted I mean that's really the basis of our justice system here is that he's accused of this crime But he's innocent until proven guilty. He wants to use this money this trust from his parents for his defense But does it become tricky when he's accused of murdering them? I mean, how does the slayer statute kind of factor in? Yeah, it's really interesting and it's like that's the perfect word to describe it as tricky So this layer statute basically says that you know if you have been determined to feloniously and intentionally those the You know, classic words that are used feloniously and intentionally kill someone you cannot then be able to seek Inheritance from those victims or seek benefits from the victims of state So obviously here that would be triggered if it's proven that he intentionally killed his parents then there would be You know reasonably a blockage in him being able to get the inheritance the issue is is that There hasn't been a determination whether he's done that so a lot of times the slayer statute is triggered if there's been a Criminal conviction so if someone's been ruled guilty in a criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt after a trial or Interestingly a probate court can actually make that determination as well And that's a little bit of a lower standard is by preponderance of the evidence So you can have a probate court that can make the determination as to whether they feloniously are intentionally killed someone and what I found out My research which was really interesting is if someone can be acquitted in a criminal court the probate court still has the ability to make that Determination so here. It's kind of tricky because they can't really make that determination as to whether he can get the inheritance until he's deemed guilty or innocent But a lot of times probate courts can make the determination before a criminal trial They're just really hesitant to a lot of times because they don't want to interfere with the criminal case in that process So it's it's really interesting in terms of timing with this oh Wow, it's so interesting that you could be acquitted let's say in the probate court could still be like Nah, you're not getting in and I guess it's all coming down to timing right because in the petition his team Nick Riner's team is like time is of the essence. We need to build a defense We need to have the money for this so you said that a probate court is sometimes hesitant to kind of rule on this ahead of time Do you think they would have you know breathing down their neck to kind of move forward with this so that Nick Riner's team could use the money? I mean, what are your thoughts about all that? They can possibly I think there's going to be some strong sentiment from the probate court or the judge because you know He's been accused of murdering his parents and again the main reason he wants to be able to access this fund is to pay for his defense I do think the strongest argument as mentioned is that he was entitled to half of this Prior to these acts occurring so I think if anything Perhaps what we might see is a ruling that okay He might be entitled to the first half of the money because you know the trusted stated He was entitled to this when he was 30 before these murders took place So I could see that happening. I could also see a judge making the determination to just freeze all the assets for now It's a little bit tough though because again. He is a defendant. He's entitled to a defense right now He has a public defender, which is obviously free of charge But you know, I think there are some arguments that he can make in that he's entitled to be able to have a defense You know, he wants to have the money to access getting a private attorney of his own choosing and because some of this money was Available before these murders took place you know, his team is trying to make the argument that he should be entitled to it So I think in all likelihood will probably see maybe him getting half of that initial sum or a judge making just the determination We're just freezing the assets and you'll go ahead with the public defender But the laws are really protective of defendants and the rights that they have to retain counsel and get defend So I think we also will see that a judge doesn't want to risk being overruled or being deemed to have taken his Institutional right to have a defense taken away. I Think that's the perfect segue into the Alan Jackson of it all because if anybody has been following this case You know that originally Nick Riner was wrapped by Alan Jackson who of course any long crime court TV fans No, he represented Kevin Spacey and you know, he has been acquitted of all charges He represented Karen Reed here in Massachusetts. Also, she's been acquitted the charges So Alan Jackson really a heavy weight with you know any sort of defense team Nick Riner gets him okay great Everything's cool until it seems like he doesn't have the money to put the bill for Alan Jackson and now he's got the public defender So let's say that he does get this money I mean, do you think it really could help his defense to have someone like Alan Jackson? I do I think so you know Alan Jackson is a really high profile attorney He did have to withdraw from the case quite early on and the reasons were unclear at the time So now that more of this information is coming to light I think a lot of people are making the assumption that it was that Nick Riner couldn't afford him So I think having someone like that with the track record is absolutely optimal for a defendant like this. I think this is a really This is a really difficult case Just given Nick Riner's history of you know mental illness and You know prior acts that has have happened in their family beforehand and you know obviously the tragic way that his parents were killed within the home so I think there's a lot of facts and Evidence so far that seems to go against Nick Riner So being able to have an attorney like Alan Jackson who has that You know history of being able to have defendants be acquitted and have that track record That's someone that you know you always need in a case like this where the facts are so grizzly It's the added element of it's his parents and just the public sentiment of it all I mean obviously there's always a strong public sentiment and Reaction to a murder case, but when it involves you know family members That's something we cover all the time here on long crime But especially when it's a child being accused of murdering their parents I think the public sentiment is even stronger so I definitely think that's someone he wants to have on his side And I'm sure as public defender is really capable, you know They're great public defenders in California and all across this country But to be able to retain you know counsel of your own choosing and a private attorney who has that kind of track record I you know, I think that's it makes sense why they're trying to pursue this. I mean as you pointed out the facts against him are really harsh and again at this point We mostly know all of the information that we have is from the prosecution or from investigators who are working with the prosecution So we don't necessarily know what is up the defense's sleeve But from what the facts are that we know it does look pretty tough and to your point to I mean I remember actually texting you specifically after this happened and we were like Rob Reiner what oh my god And then you add the factor that not only is this a beloved person and his wife Killed in their own home allegedly by their child than the way in which it happened I believe you even said grizzly I mean the facts of the case are really tough so I can understand him wanting to have you know this top not to attorney to kind of Help with his case and that kind of leads into my next question to this is kind of off from what we were talking about But I do have to wonder what sort of defense could Nick Reiner even bring I mean you talked about his mental health issues in the past That's something that the trustee was kind of citing back when he was 30 years old as to not give him the money at the time Allegedly, what do you think they would bring for a defense? Could it be a mental health situation? I mean what are your thoughts? Yeah, it's a good question. So I think if he had made the choice to plead guilty then you know they would absolutely cite to his mental health you know we've seen various cases where a defendant pleads guilty but then they invoke the insanity plea or they say they weren't of sound mind or you know they'll try to push instead of a murder conviction manslaughter which carries much less time so I think that could be a possibility but if since he's pleading not guilty I think a lot of it will point to what we've seen in many criminal cases of attorney saying well where's the evidence you know where is there a video you know home camera demonstrating he did this uh. what other witnesses were in the home you know what sort of DNA evidence links him to the crime um. you know I think we see in a lot of cases you know obviously OJ being prime example that we always go back to where a lot of people in the public eye make the connection between the legit defendant and the acts that took place and a lot of evidence people see it as sort of obvious but then the defense attorneys job is to say well here the gaps in the evidence and you can't really point to whether he was there at that time what witnesses were around what the DNA evidence specifically says so I think you know if there's a change in the plea to guilty I think we're going to see them try to push and go towards the mental health aspect but if it's not guilty and that's the plea that he's going to stick with I think there we're going to see a lot of the defense attorneys trying to poke holes in whatever evidence they show and we also saw that a little bit in the filing as well for him to access the trust fund you know one of the arguments they try to make is you know he hasn't been um. you know deemed incompetent by a judge um. you know there's been no ruling in terms of whether it's from a jury or judge on his mental health so it seems like they're trying to push away the mental health issues and aspect as far as they can for now okay Elizabeth I think you're totally right about this because initially I thought mental health that's what they've got to go with but based on the filing and everything that we've seen recently I mean I don't know if that's the route that they were going to go and I guess something we talked about early on in this case is the siblings because we have to remember the fact that Nick Reiner who's accused of killing his parents he has two other siblings a brother and a sister who the brother has been on spoken about it the sister allegedly found her parents I mean just a tragic situation overall and I'm wondering if they have any sort of voice in all of this just the fact that the trustee is the one who's going to kind of determine at least at this point until judge gets involved whether Nick Reiner can receive the trust but I'm wondering if the siblings are saying hey we don't want him to have that money we don't want him to have the trust at this point does their voice count for anything yeah that's a great question so I can't really see it counting for much so allegedly what happened is that the parents set up separate trusts for each of the children so you know Nick was set up with a trust as were the other children completely separately I think if this was a joint trust where all of the children were entitled to some sort of money jointly I think they'd have more of a say I think the issue here is that this was a completely separate trust set up for him with these age parameters in place so I don't think legally and in terms of a determination by judge or the proby court it's going to carry too much weight I'm sure obviously public sentiment because we always say there's two courts the court of public opinion and the legal court so I think the court of public opinion you know their opinion obviously matters a great deal and I know there were reports that they allegedly were helping fund some of his defense in the beginning and that sort of apparently tapered off so you know the siblings have an involvement here but as to whether you know their thoughts are if he's should be entitled to that trust fund for his defense or not I don't think it's going to carry too much weight just because again it's a completely separate trust set up solely for him you brought up a good point the court of public opinion and then the justice system court because when I think about this case I always think about the siblings because I mean my sister and I I think if she was accused in the death of our parents we're supposed to be mourning together the loss and then it creates a whole other level of just depravity in this and again he's innocent until proven guilty he's just you know accused of these charges but I'm sure it's like a logically that's doing a lot to the siblings and that kind of leads into my next question so we talked about this layer of statute but also kind of in that realm is the son of Sam laws because previously I had reported that Nick Reiner there were reports out there that from behind bars he wanted to write this tell all book assuming it was because he wanted to raise funds for his defense but I'm wondering if this would be allowed because based on the son of Sam laws you can't profit from a crime you're convicted of however he hasn't been convicted so I mean what I what can you tell me about the son of Sam laws yeah it's a great question and it comes up a lot here at long crime right because you know we cover a lot of these kinds of cases and you know when you have defendants participating whether you're producing a movie or you know a docu series or a book that's when the son of Sam laws come into play and so there's about 40 states across America that have son of Sam laws and basically what they are and it varies depending state by state but it's either a prohibition preventing defendants from being able to you know participate or you completely manage writing books movies docu series based on their life and especially the crime they've been convicted of in California it's really interesting because in 2002 the son of Sam laws were struck down because they were too over broad so now apparently what is going on in that state for a while now is that defendants aren't completely prohibited from writing books or movies or you know related items based on their crimes but there's been an extension in terms of you know the family members of the victim and how they can sue so in California you have 10 years from when a defendant has been released on parole to for the victims families to be able to sue to recover some of those profits so you know you can have a defendant you know write a book or work on a movie or whatever the project might be within California but their rights to retain the profit from that is really really restricted and the families are afforded you know a long period of time to try to pursue that revenue so he could you know he could pursue that a lot of defendants you know who have been accused of some of these crimes and similar crimes really do that and especially here I think it's something that might be a strong likelihood because it is involving people in Hollywood it's a huge amount of public attention on this kind of case so I wouldn't be surprised if something like that came up but his ability to retain the profits from it would be really really limited and I'm sure you know the siblings might have strong feelings about that other members of the family would have strong feelings about it it's this case is so layered because I think if this case was in middle America I'll call it my home state Wisconsin if this happened in Wisconsin and son is accused of murdering his two parents we cover it here on long crime but I think it adds to it the fact that it's Rob Reiner that before that they were at Conan O'Brien's Christmas party there was Jane Fonda there allegedly and Bill Hader I mean the celebrity of it all makes everyone want to know more just because we are generally enamored with celebrities so this case in general is just it's such a crazy one and just to put a bow on everything Elizabeth what are your thoughts do you think that a judge is going to rule in the favor of Nick Reiner that he will receive at least some of this trust fund I think there's a strong likelihood that he might a judge may rule that he's entitled to at least half of it because again that was triggered prior to these actions taking place so I could see a judge either stating okay your entitled to the initial half of it because the remaining half again he's not supposed to get until he's the age of 35 and his attorneys are making the argument you know this is an irrevocable trust the trustee shouldn't have complete discretion about whether the funds should be dispersed or not so I could see either judge saying okay your entitled to the first half of this fund or completely placing a hold on it and having him continue with the public defender I am ruling a little bit in favor of the first option because again a defendants right to you know a defense and to be able to retain an attorney of their choosing is a really strong right judges don't want to be overruled when it comes to that so I think I'm leaning a little bit more towards the first option but I wouldn't be surprised if a judge said you know what you have a public defender your entitled to a defense we're freezing the assets and the trial is going to go forward so I think it's going to be one or the two I don't see a likelihood of him getting the entire sum of money no yeah I kind of agree with you I think he might receive at least some and it could help with his defense obviously he said that's his right as an American and I'll be interested to see what sort of depends that he's going to bring Elizabeth O'Ligh thank you for coming on scandal with us and breaking down this really complicated case thank you so much for having me Sierra it's always a pleasure and that's where today's episode of scandal leaves us for now if you like what you saw and you want to see more or connect with me on social media you can find me on places like Instagram @SierraGillespie thanks for watching today's episode of scandal as always I'm your host Sierra Gillespie and I'll see you next time