Current Trends - When Tragedy Meets the Law: The Reiner Case - Episode 233

Hey there, Legal Tea Listeners – This is your host, Jenny Rozelle. Welcome back for another episode, which is a “current trends” topic where we talk about things going on currently that are relevant and pertinent to my estate and elder law world, and/or maybe things I’ve seen on the news or stumbled across on social media. Well, today’s episode is a sad reminder of how often things that are plastered on the news or spread across social media – are directly relevant to my little estate world, and that’s because today is going to be about the double homicide of famed director, Rob Reiner, and his spouse, Michele Reiner – and more specifically about something called the Slayer Rule, which will very, very likely play into things as time passes and we see how the Court handles the homicides as well as Rob and Michele’s estates. Before we dive in, let me bring you up to speed on what happened to the Reiners as we sit here today, I’m recording in early January 2026. This is one of those episodes that because things are so fresh, I may have to end up doing an update episode…

Before we dive in, I want to acknowledge that we're going to be discussing a real case involving real people and an unimaginable tragedy. Alright so, on December 14th, legendary director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele were found dead at their home in Brentwood, California. Rob Reiner—the guy who gave us "When Harry Met Sally," "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me"—an absolute icon of American filmmaking. That same evening, their 32-year-old son Nick was arrested and charged with two counts of murder. He's being held without bail, with his arraignment scheduled for January 7^th – that will take place after I’ve recorded this, but before this episode has been released, so just to note that…

For this episode, I wanted to talk about what happened and how it is relevant to something called the Slayer Rule, which we have talked before on here about, as well as something called a simultaneous death provision, which is something that many people have in their estate plan documents. Let’s start with the Slayer Rule… Something to know and remember is that the Reiners were residents of California and what that means is today we are going to talk about the California Slayer Rule, so just know that every state can kind of do their own thing with the Slayer Rule. According to California Probate Code, the Slayer Rule rests on a straightforward principle: a person should not inherit from someone whose death they intentionally and maliciously caused. Put simply: if you kill someone in California, you cannot profit from their death by inheriting from them. The law treats you as if you died before the person you killed. You are disqualified from receiving anything from their estate—whether they left you something in a will, a trust, or even if there was no will at all and you'd normally inherit under state intestacy laws.

Here's something interesting about California's Slayer Rule / Statute: you don't actually need a criminal conviction for it to apply. Now, if you listened to my Slayer Rule podcast episode a while back, there have actually been some court cases in the US that DO require a conviction, so this is a California thing – that, they do NOT require a criminal conviction for it to apply. So, think about that for a second. In criminal court, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"—that's a really high bar, right? But California law allows the probate court to use the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to determine if someone intentionally killed their parents. That's basically saying more likely than not. So, while a criminal conviction is generally conclusive, it is not always required for the slayer statute to apply. A probate court MAY reach its own conclusions based on the evidence presented. A way easier way to say all of that is … even if the criminal case gets dismissed, or there's a hung jury, or someone is acquitted in criminal court, a probate court COULD still say, "Based on the evidence we've seen, we believe it's more likely than not that this person killed the decedent, so they're not inheriting."

Now, here’s where things may get difficult in the Reiner case, specifically with Nick and his frame of mind – and that is … how does California define “slayer” and the key terms in it are "feloniously [fuh-lone-iss-lee] and intentionally." What that means is … if the killing was accidental or occurred under circumstances that may negate felonious intent, the statute would not apply. This ensures that only those who have committed a wrongful act are disqualified from inheritance. Another thing to know is that the statute does not automatically disqualify individuals found to be mentally incapacitated at the time of the killing. If a person lacks the mental capacity to form intent, they may escape the statute's reach.  That very well may apply to Nick – and probably what Nick’s lawyer will try to argue. Their argument may be—Nick should be able to inherit because the "intentional" requirement might not be met if he lacked the mental capacity to form intent.

So, right now, that’s some general information about the Reiners, their estate, and how the Slayer Rule / Slayer Statute may be applicable. We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Let’s now shift to the topic of simultaneous death provisions in an estate plan… what they are, when they apply, and why they matter so much in estate planning. This is also going to likely be relevant in the Reiner case, sadly.

A simultaneous death provision is a clause in a Will or Trust that answers a very specific but very important question: What happens if two people die at the same time, or super close together? Most commonly, this comes up with spouses, but it can apply to any situation where one person’s estate plan depends on another person surviving them (like maybe a child dies shortly before or after their parent or something like that). These provisions are designed to eliminate uncertainty and avoid legal battles over something as morbid—but critical—as the order of death or even clear up intent if there are deaths that happen super close together.

Now, many estate planning documents say something along the lines of: If my spouse or a beneficiary does not survive me by 30 days—or 60 days, or 90 days—then they are treated as having predeceased me. Or, it will say something very specific – like XYZ happens then. If there is a survival period like a set number of number, that is key. Even if one spouse technically lives longer by minutes or hours, if they don’t survive the required time period spelled out in the document, the plan treats them as though they passed first (or the plan will do whatever it says to do). When a document has a clear survival requirement like this, the estate plan itself governs, and we don’t have to rely on default state law rules or forensic guesswork.

What happens if there is NO provision then? Well, if there is no simultaneous death or survival provision in the documents, then state law steps in. Many states—including California which is relevant here for the Reiners—have default rules that essentially say if there is no sufficient evidence that one person survived the other, each person is treated as having predeceased the other for purposes of their respective estates. That can lead to assets passing in ways the decedents never intended, sometimes diverting property away from shared beneficiaries and into entirely different family lines. So, this is why these provisions are so important from a planning perspective.

Without them, families may end up litigating not just who inherits, but in what order, which I am sure you can imagine … may dramatically change the outcome. Therefore, a well-drafted simultaneous death clause in a Will or Trust effectively removes ambiguity, speeds up administration, and reduces the likelihood of conflict at an already emotionally charged time.

In cases like the Reiners—where two spouses die in close proximity and under tragic circumstances—simultaneous death provisions can play a major role in determining how assets flow, completely separate from any criminal issues or Slayer Rule analysis. Even when wrongdoing is alleged, the estate plan’s survival language may dictate the initial framework for distribution before any disqualification rules are applied. That means … From a broader estate-planning takeaway standpoint, this is a reminder that good planning is not just about who gets what—it’s about when and under what conditions. Simultaneous death provisions are one of those clauses that people rarely think about, except for attorneys like me, but when they are needed, they are absolutely critical. And unfortunately, they tend to matter most in moments no family ever expects to face.

As we wrap up, I want to be very clear about something. This is an active, deeply tragic case involving real people, and much of what we’ve talked about today will ultimately depend on facts that are still unfolding and decisions that have not yet been made by the courts. Nothing here is meant to speculate about guilt or outcomes. The Reiner family is living through something unimaginable, and at the center of all of this are lives lost and a family forever changed. That said, cases like this resonate so strongly because they remind us that estate planning issues don’t only arise in quiet, expected moments at the end of a long life. They often surface in chaos, in tragedy, and in circumstances no one could have predicted. While the Reiners’ names are everywhere right now because of their fame, the legal issues at play—the Slayer Rule, simultaneous death provisions, questions of intent, capacity, and survivorship—are the same ones that affect everyday families across the country.

I see versions of this before in my practice. Sure, not with headlines and cameras, but with sudden deaths, family conflict, unanswered questions, and estate plans that either help bring clarity—or leave loved ones sorting through confusion and court proceedings. And that’s really the takeaway here. Thoughtful estate planning is not about expecting the worst; it’s about protecting the people you care about if the unthinkable happens. Because, as we know, tragedy does not discriminate, and when it strikes, the details in those documents matter more than anyone ever expects.

Alrighty, let’s wrap this episode up, shall we? Next week, we’re back to the “celebrity estate planning” type of episode – so, for this episode, I may do an episode on professional racecar driver, Greg Biffle – again, another super tragic situation – and what we know so far, but I will have to see how much information is “out there” to see if there’s enough to do an episode. So yeah, next week MAY be on Greg Biffle,  we’ll see. So tune in next week, Legal Tea Listeners. Talk to you then!

Sources:

None.