I’m watching a live report that Rob Reiner and his wife were stabbed to death in Brentwood and it might’ve been by Rob‘s son. Still waiting for verification.
Last edited:
The Murder of Rob and Michele Reiner in Brentwood, California
- Thread starter Kimster
- Start date
I’m watching a live report that Rob Reiner and his wife were stabbed to death in Brentwood and it might’ve been by Rob‘s son. Still waiting for verification.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
Like you don't have to have a will OR a trust and can't have both or have them intertwine. Lol.
I worked with it.
I worked with it.
If he was receiving money from a private source, to live on and for his treatment, that income would just continue and pay for his defence presumably. They can't prevent him getting a legitimate income if he already receives it.
Mel70
I miss you Oreo.
I know for an absolute fact.
Mel70
I miss you Oreo.
And can be separate.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
@Guess Who You are telling people they don't know what a will is, or that a public defender is paid by the state, etc. We all know these things. Sorry but it's like calling people stupid to think we don't know. Or a trust for that matter.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
Sure, if something was already in place that he was allowed to use. Hard to believe this "kid" though wouldn't go through it and empty it if he'd had such through something like 17+ years of drug abuse and rehab and needing the folks to house him and everything else.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
Well I'll just say it would be totally bad parenting for Nick's parents to have had an active trust for him of THEIR money while alive. Makes no sense to me that they would. When they were trying tough parenting and everything else? It isn't tough if he has access to such.
I personally think it's a moot point.
Now that they are dead, that's a whole new can of worms.
I personally think it's a moot point.
Now that they are dead, that's a whole new can of worms.
You can be a drug addict without actually still being on drugs. Then you can relapse and go back on them. They did not say he was under the influence of drugs. A bit like an alcoholic is always an alcoholic, even after rehab.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
They did though. It went along with the SP diagnosis and sources that said that and said his meds had him messed up with recent changes and talked of the $70K rehab facility, they also said couple the SP with the fact he was using drugs... Again I guess if he ever even quit in his life seriously.
18 rehab stints.
"Two sources" and of course they don't have to disclose them but I hate "sources" as opposed to naming the sources. Sources clearly don't want to be known. Makes it a bit more questionable imo.
IMO It would have been a sensible thing for them to have had. There would have been trustees who administered it for Nick's benefit then. If the parents died, it could still continue and could have been the whole reason behind any trust for him.
Mel70
I miss you Oreo.
No. You're recovering. My best friend has been clean and sober 40 years. Saying always isn't giving someone credit.
Mel70
I miss you Oreo.
His meds though. Not drugs. I just think that's a terrible way to start an article. It's technically slander. Proof of him being high at the time?.
I was specifically talking about when he was arrested though. Not about all his previous rehab stints.
A recovering drug addict then. But we don't know if he was in his latest of his 18 relapses though. Calling someone "the drug addict" in a newspaper article is just a description of his status. Almost like saying "the office worker" or the "factory worker". It is not a derogatory term, as such, IMO.
Mel70
I miss you Oreo.
It is derogatory. Description of someone. No.
Guess Who
Well-known member
That's exactly how it works.
Guess Who
Well-known member
Yet, it's obvious that many do not know that.
Guess Who
Well-known member
That depends on how the trust is set up. In many cases like his, they only get so much, so often at that they can't just blow through it all. That is one of the major reasons why trusts are set up in the first place.
GrandmaBear
Former Member
Maybe but you can have a trust to start at death, why do it with him while they can still oversee things? I mean his is living literally right in their own back yard. They were hardly not in control of whether he was housed, etc. THEMSELVES I mean.
But of course anything is possible and the kicker is we may never know. Even his attorney never has to disclose how he is paid, by what or even whether he is paid necessarily.
I don't know if probate is public in CA, it is here.
If they were smart, however, they'd have had experts arrange to have as little as possible go through probate court. And they well COULD have done trusts for their adult kids, even grandkids if they wished, after death. Or during, sure, it is possible. I sure wouldn't have done such with Nick. Also while alive you could nix such. Or not re-fund the thing if they wipe it out. YOu can also put conditions on it if it is administered as to what is an okay use.
They could also of course just set up savings accounts for their kids or something like it and say here's your account I funded for you dear.
Anything is possible.
I'm sure or would think Nick and all the kids were in the will to whatever extent of what they were to receive, whether by trust, or directly. I don't imagine the parents were thinking of Nick killing them. So he'd certainly be in line for his share, whatever was left to the kids, most likely, and it would take someone contesting it to probably stop him getting his share. The slayer statute kicks in after conviction. If the family or people in the will don't contest it, he will likely yes get money, etc.
that's my look at it all anyhow. anything is possible. The siblings, also could say to him, sure you can tap your share before it is all even dealt with but when it's gone, it's gone. Anything is possible.
Man I'm getting nothing done today and I need to before it is dark already. Have an ultrasound tomorrow so tomorrow is out for getting things done.