Nick Reiner Claims He Hasn’t Received Even $5 from Family Trust for Jail Commissary

The 33-year-old, who is awaiting trial in the deaths of his parents Rob and Michele Reiner, is seeking at least $558,000 from the family trust

NEED TO KNOW

• Nick Reiner says he has received “not even $5” for jail commissary despite a roughly $1.6 million family trust, according to new court documents
• His attorneys are seeking at least $558,000 they say became due when he turned 30 in 2023
• Two filings accuse the trustees of delaying access to the money while spending more than $250,000 in legal fees from the trust

Nick Reiner has received “not even $5 for the jail commissary” while awaiting trial on charges in the deaths of his parents, Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner, according to two new legal filings obtained by PEOPLE.

The 33-year-old has been in custody since December 2025 at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles and is fighting to access a family trust worth roughly $1.6 million. The Nick Reiner Children’s Trust Dated December 2, 1993, was established by his parents and names Reiner as its sole beneficiary.

In two separate replies filed Sept. 17 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Reiner’s attorneys respond to objections from successor trustee Jodi Pais Montgomery and former trustee Paul R. Kanin. They argue that Reiner has been unable to access trust money for basic needs in jail or to hire private criminal defense counsel.

In the reply to Montgomery’s objections, Nick’s attorneys Anita P. Wu and Geoffrey A. Neri wrote, “In the meantime, Nick still has not been able to access even $5 from his trust to buy basic subsistence items from the jail commissary.”

The attorneys also argue that Reiner’s efforts to obtain his trust funds have been repeatedly delayed in their response to Kanin. “Since then, Nick has been unable to access money that is lawfully his own — to re-engage criminal defense counsel, or even for basic subsistence items from the jail commissary,” they claim.

At the center of the dispute is an “Age-30 Distribution” that the trust required to be paid when Reiner turned 30 on Sept. 14, 2023. According to the successor trustee’s calculation cited by his attorneys, at least $558,000 became due to him that day.

“Nick turned 30 on September 14, 2023. By the Successor Trustee’s own calculation, at least $558,000 became due and payable to him that day. His parents were alive. No one had accused him of anything,” the Montgomery filing alleges.

His attorneys argue that the money became his before his parents’ deaths and therefore should not be subject to California’s Slayer Statute, which can prevent a person from benefiting from a death they unlawfully caused. “The Slayer Statute, the sole remaining basis for withholding this money, takes away what a person receives as a result of someone’s death,” the filing claims. “It does not implicate money that became Nick’s years earlier.”

Nick was indicted in July of two counts of first-degree murder, with special circumstances of lying in wait, in addition to the use of a knife, according to the indictment. His criminal case carries potential sentences including life without the possibility of parole. On Tuesday, Sept. 15, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said at a press conference that Nick will not face the death penalty.

Attorney Alan Jackson represented Reiner after his December 2025 arrest but withdrew from the murder case the following month, citing only “circumstances beyond our control.” Nick has since been represented by a public defender but said in a summer filing he hoped to rehire Jackson if he gained access to the trust funds.

“Nick Reiner is the sole beneficiary of a trust his parents created for him in 1993 (the ‘Trust’ or ‘Nick’s Trust’), when he was an infant. It holds roughly $1.6 million. He sits in custody awaiting trial on double-homicide charges that carry life without the possibility of parole, defended by the Los Angeles County Public Defender at public expense – not because he cannot afford a lawyer of his own, but because the Trustees of his Trust will not release his money to him,” his attorneys wrote.

In the separate reply addressing Kanin’s objections, Reiner’s attorneys focus specifically on the former trustee’s handling of his commissary account. They say Kanin agreed in April 2026 to deposit funds into the account, but the money was never deposited.

According to the filing, Kanin’s attorney agreed on April 18 and 20 to make distributions to replenish the account and requested deposit instructions. Reiner’s counsel provided the instructions on April 21 and followed up.

“No deposit was ever made. Kanin never withdrew the commitment; it was simply never honored,” Nick’s attorneys allege.

Kanin served as trustee for 15 weeks before resigning in May 2026. Reiner’s lawyers allege that he “never intended to serve at all” and contend that he had previously disbursed substantial trust funds to Reiner’s criminal defense counsel and agreed to periodic commissary distributions.

“The harm here is severe and ongoing. Nick has been deprived of the use of his own money and has been unable to pay for criminal defense counsel and experts since January 2026, prejudicing his ability to defend against double homicide charges with special circumstances,” the filing claims.

Reiner’s attorneys also argue that the Slayer Statute should not apply to at least $325,017.49 in trust assets that they say originated with his grandfather Carl Reiner, who died in June 2020.

“Either way, the Slayer Statute has no application to that money. Nick’s grandfather died on June 29, 2020. Nick is not accused of causing his death. Money that was left to Nick by his grandfather is not money received by Nick from or through his parents,” they wrote.

The filings also challenge the amount being spent by the trustees on the trust litigation. Reiner’s attorneys say the trustees’ lawyers have already incurred more than $250,000 in fees, which are being paid from the trust.

“Based on information provided by the Trustees’ lawyers, it is Petitioner’s understanding that the Trustees’ counsel have already incurred more than a quarter of a million dollars in fees litigating these disputes against him, which they are paying themselves out of Nick’s Trust,” the Montgomery filing claims.

“Third, it is Nick who is paying for the fight to keep his money from him.”

Reiner’s attorneys argue that withholding the trust funds prevents him from using his own money to retain counsel and experts while his criminal case is pending.

“What the Successor Trustee asks this Court to do is enter an order freezing a presumed-innocent man’s own untainted money until after the trial at which his liberty will be decided – and by doing so, deny him representation he could otherwise afford,” they wrote in Montgomery filing. “The Supreme Court has held that the pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain a defendant’s counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment.”

Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for PEOPLE’s free True Crime newsletter for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.

His attorneys are asking the court to order payment of the Age-30 Distribution — including growth earned while it was withheld — and to instruct the successor trustee to fund Reiner’s commissary account. They also ask the court to clarify that trust funds may be used for criminal defense costs and to bifurcate the breach-of-trust claims against Kanin for further proceedings.

Montgomery has opposed Reiner’s requests, arguing that the trust should be preserved while the criminal case remains unresolved. Kanin has denied that his conduct constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties, arguing that he acted prudently in administering the trust.

Montgomery has opposed Nick’s requests in an August filing, arguing that no distributions should be made until the criminal case has concluded and the potential application of California’s Slayer Statute has been resolved. Kanin also denied in an August response that his conduct constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties, arguing that he acted prudently in administering the trust.

“A trustee’s role is to serve the beneficiary. It is not to spend the beneficiary’s money litigating against him, Nick’s attorneys wrote in Montgomery’s filing. “Every month this continues, there is less left – for Nick, and for anyone who might ever claim it.”

A hearing on the trust dispute is scheduled for Oct. 23 at 8:30 a.m. before Judge Ruben Garcia in Los Angeles County Superior Court Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Read the full article here