California’s Slayer Statute: How the Law Addresses Inheritance After Tragedy

Updated On: December 16, 2025

The recent tragic deaths of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, allegedly at the hands of their son, brings attention to the issue of what happens to an estate when a person who may stand to inherit is accused of causing death.

California law provides the answer.

The California “Slayer Statute”

California Probate Code section 250, commonly referred to as the “slayer statute,” rests on a straightforward principle: a person should not inherit from someone whose death they intentionally and feloniously caused.

If the statute applies, the law treats the perpetrator as though they predeceased the victim. In practical terms, that means the individual cannot take from the estate altogether. They do not inherit under a will or trust. They do not take a share through intestate succession. They do not receive life insurance proceeds, retirement benefits, or pay-on-death accounts.

The estate is administered and distributed as if that person did not exist.

What It Means for Other Family Members, Heirs and Beneficiaries

Where an estate plan divides assets among heirs and beneficiaries, the application of the slayer statute reallocates the perpetrator’s share among the other heirs and named beneficiaries.

If an heir or beneficiary is treated as having predeceased the victim, the remaining heirs and beneficiaries typically inherit in their place, either outright or in trust, depending on how the plan is structured. In practical terms, that usually means larger bequests and benefits for the remaining beneficiaries, but it can also mean heightened responsibilities.

In estates involving business and intellectual property interests, inheritance is often not just about receiving assets. It is about stepping into roles involving control, governance, and long-term stewardship. Those responsibilities can fall on beneficiaries and heirs who might have never expected to carry them, particularly in moments of unimaginable grief.

Probate Court and Criminal Court Are Different Proceedings

Another point often misunderstood is where these determinations are made.

Inheritance questions are resolved in probate court, which is a civil forum. The standard of proof differs from that of criminal court. 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.

This distinction matters because estates must be administered, businesses and life must continue. Trustees and executors have ongoing obligations. Assets must be preserved. Income streams must be managed. Things cannot be placed indefinitely on hold.

It Is Rarely Just About a Will or Trust

Modern estates, particularly those built around creative or entrepreneurial careers, are often structured through a combination of revocable trusts, irrevocable trusts, holding companies, insurance and non-probate transfers. Life insurance policies, retirement accounts, and business entities frequently sit outside probate but remain subject to the same public policy principles.

California law applies its slayer statute equally across all of these structures. The form of ownership will not change the outcome.

A Quiet but Necessary Part of the Law

California’s Probate Code cannot undo the tragic loss of life, but what it does do is provide fairness, structure and predictability.

About the Author

Scott Rahn, Founding Partner​

Scott Rahn resolves contests, disputes and litigation related to trusts, estates and conservatorships, creating a welcome peace of mind for clients. He represents heirs, beneficiaries, trustees and executors. He utilizes his experience to develop and implement strategies that swiftly and efficiently address the financial issues, fiduciary duties and emotional complexities underlying trust contests, estates conflicts and probate litigation.