• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

The Murder of Rob and Michele Reiner in Brentwood, California

Guess Who said:
So you want to pay for his defense? I sure don't, especially when he has access to funds. The public pays for a pubic defender.
Click to expand...
We don't pay for a CA public defender, we don't live there.

And it would hardly be the only PS we've ever paid for with a public defender if it did apply to us. Which it doesn't. @Ranch would have the right to complain about that lol.
 
Kimster said:
Guessy, you’re making me think before I finish my 1st cup of coffee. But I’ll bet if his parents were able to have a say in it, they would want their money used for him to get the best defense, and if that means being in a mental hospital the rest of his life, so be it. Just seems like that would be what they would want, whether I agree with it or not.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. There's too much various talk out there and one such thing is that they were leaving a lot of their estate to causes and that Rob wanted his children to be self reliant.
 
Mel70 said:
He killed them. So he should get nothing.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY and almost all agree with such. Out there in the big wide world I mean. You don't profit from murder from the very people you murder, or SHOULDN'T anyhow, and there need to be laws doing something about it.

Yeah, sure, just show murderers who are thinking of murdering for money that YES, IT SURE DOES WORK.
 
Guess Who said:
Not always. Many rich have trusts set up to dole out funds while they are alive. I know quite a few trust fund kids where the person that formed the trust is still alive and kicking. It's all in the way it's set up. It's called a living trust for a reason. There are tax advantages to doing so.

A "will" is what you are thinking of. They take effect after death.
Click to expand...
Almost no one does that. I worked around such for years. Trusts for after death yes. Most parents hold the say over helping their children out while alive and deciding what is worthy of it and what isn't.

Respectfully disagree.

Grandpa may have left a trust but that's just a possibility, certainly isn't anything I've heard as true or even likely.
 
Guess Who said:
Exactly, plus his siblings might have had a say in it too.

I sure want the public defenders to be used for the people that actually need them that have no funds available to them. The true indigent NEEDS them to be available to them and not some trust fund person using up all the funds that are allotted to public defenders.
Click to expand...
I've NEVER heard of all the funds being used up and someone not being allowed a public defender who needed one. It is REQUIRED. Sorry but that's a totally imaginary situation.
 
Mel70 said:
I was thinking of a trust.
Click to expand...
Which is directed during life. A will is what takes effect only after death.

AI Overview
A
Will directs asset distribution after death, goes through public probate court, and names guardians for kids, while a Trust manages assets during life and after death, avoids probate for privacy and speed, and handles incapacity, but a Will is still needed for guardianship. Think of a Will as a death instruction manual, and a Trust as a living financial manager that continues after you're gone.
Will
  • Effective: Only after you die.
  • Probate: Must go through the public, potentially lengthy, court process (probate).
  • Key Function: Names guardians for minor children, appoints an executor.
  • Control: Less control over asset management after death; court oversees.
Trust (Living Trust)
  • Effective: Immediately upon signing and funding (transferring assets into it).
  • Probate: Avoids probate, keeping assets private and distribution faster.
  • Key Function: Manages assets for you if you become incapacitated; distributes them privately.
  • Control: Provides more control over how and when assets are distributed, even after death.
 
Guess Who said:
Which is directed during life. A will is what takes effect only after death.

AI Overview
A
Will directs asset distribution after death, goes through public probate court, and names guardians for kids, while a Trust manages assets during life and after death, avoids probate for privacy and speed, and handles incapacity, but a Will is still needed for guardianship. Think of a Will as a death instruction manual, and a Trust as a living financial manager that continues after you're gone.
Will
  • Effective: Only after you die.
  • Probate: Must go through the public, potentially lengthy, court process (probate).
  • Key Function: Names guardians for minor children, appoints an executor.
  • Control: Less control over asset management after death; court oversees.
Trust (Living Trust)
  • Effective: Immediately upon signing and funding (transferring assets into it).
  • Probate: Avoids probate, keeping assets private and distribution faster.
  • Key Function: Manages assets for you if you become incapacitated; distributes them privately.
  • Control: Provides more control over how and when assets are distributed, even after death.
Click to expand...
There are trusts set up for after death.
 
Mel70 said:
That's pretty bad reporting.

the drug addict was seen.
Click to expand...
Its accurate though IMO. Why do you think it's bad? The sister said he should be considered dangerous.


Nick Reiner was nowhere to be found, but his sister told investigators he should be considered dangerous, sources said.
 
Mel70 said:
There are trusts set up for after death.
Click to expand...
Far more common.

Plus with Nick's history, I'd think his parents would not want him having free rein to money and would rather decide when to help him and when to say no.

The movie supposedly parallels them and the parents had the say.
 
Tresir said:
Its accurate though IMO. Why do you think it's bad? The sister said he should be considered dangerous.


Nick Reiner was nowhere to be found, but his sister told investigators he should be considered dangerous, sources said.
Click to expand...
Did they ptove he was under the influence of drugs at the time?. Sister can be quoted as saying he was dangerous.
 
Mel70 said:
Did they ptove he was under the influence of drugs at the time?. Sister can be quoted as saying he was dangerous.
Click to expand...
That is being said, along with the SP diagnosis (that's what I am using now for schizophrenic, sick of typing it out, so SP) and meds that weren't working, etc. with a change in them.

I was watching Courtroom Confidential this morning, he is a CA defense atty and he was an LA County prosecutor for ten years as well and he cautioned at taking any of that as truth just yet and recommended for instance thinking of who that information released would benefit....

Yep. It benefits Nick/the defense.

He wasn't saying it as a fact, just cautioning that it could be the case...

I've personally thought from the start the D leaked it or had someone say it and/or the family that supports Nick, if any, which there do seem to be. Also saying they'd rather see him in a mental hospital than prison.

Already trying to influence public opinion imo.
 
Mel70 said:
The people I have known it has always been a trust for after death.
Click to expand...
Same. Also all the ones we did at a law office i worked at. I think I remember one living trust but it was to give annually to some charity or cause or scholarship or some such and that was it. That was probably done just to take the headache away from administering it, they just automated it.

Most parents aren't going to want money automated for a child with the issues Nick had. Why? So he could run buy more drugs with it? I highly doubt they'd do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Forum statistics

Threads
3,273
Messages
297,335
Members
1,102
Latest member
TYK
Back
Top Bottom