A probate hearing scheduled in Los Angeles this month has drawn national attention to one of the most difficult questions in trust and estate law: can a beneficiary who is accused — but not yet convicted — of killing the people who funded his trust still reach that money, especially to pay for his own criminal defense? The case involves the adult son of a well-known filmmaker and his wife, both of whom were allegedly killed earlier this year. The son has been charged with their murders and is reportedly asking a probate judge to unlock a trust worth more than $1.5 million so he can retain private counsel.
At LA | Estate Plans, we are watching this case closely because it touches almost every pressure point that California families face when a trust is challenged: the slayer statute, vested beneficial interests, trustee discretion, clawback of distributions, and the probate court’s power as a court of equity. Below, we break down what the dispute may mean for California beneficiaries, trustees, and parents who are drafting trusts for their own children.
What Happened
According to reports, a Los Angeles probate court is being asked to decide whether an adult beneficiary — currently charged with the alleged first-degree killing of both of his parents — can access funds held in a trust that was reportedly established in 1993, the year he was born. A prior trustee is said to have already released roughly $350,000, which allowed the beneficiary to hire private defense counsel for a short period before the funds were cut off and he moved to a public defender. Reports also mention a second, larger family trust and the possibility that some assets may trace back to a grandparent. The beneficiary is presumed innocent, and nothing in this article should be read as an accusation of guilt.
Who May Be Affected
In trust and probate disputes of this kind, several categories of parties typically have skin in the game and may become involved in litigation:
- The accused beneficiary, who may argue his interest vested long ago and that denying funds will cripple his constitutional right to a defense.
- Successor or contingent beneficiaries (often siblings) whose shares would increase if the accused is barred from taking.
- Current and former trustees, who may face claims for breach of fiduciary duty depending on whether distributions were made or withheld prudently.
- The estates of the decedents, which may have independent civil claims (such as wrongful death) that could compete with trust assets.
- Third parties who received trust funds, including defense counsel, whose fees could potentially be subject to a clawback if a court later finds the beneficiary disqualified.
None of these parties is presumed to have done anything wrong by participating in the dispute — that is precisely what the probate court exists to sort out.
Legal Theories That May Apply
Several doctrines are likely to drive the analysis in a California probate court:
- California’s Slayer Statute (Probate Code §§ 250–259). A person who “feloniously and intentionally” kills a decedent is treated as having predeceased that decedent and cannot inherit by will, trust, intestacy, or beneficiary designation.
- Preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in probate. Unlike a criminal case, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a probate judge can make a slayer determination on the lower civil standard — and does not have to wait for a criminal verdict.
- Vested vs. contingent interests. The accused is expected to argue his beneficial interest vested when the trust was funded decades ago, which may affect how and when the slayer rule applies.
- Trustee discretion and fiduciary duty. Trustees must balance the terms of the instrument, the settlors’ intent, and the interests of all beneficiaries — a tightrope when one beneficiary stands accused of killing the settlors.
- Equitable powers of the probate court. California probate judges sit in equity and may weigh the competing needs of the accused and the remainder beneficiaries.
- Clawback / disgorgement. If a beneficiary is ultimately found to be a slayer, distributions already made — including to attorneys — may be subject to recovery.
- Mental state and capacity defenses. Reports suggest diagnoses may be raised; because the slayer statute requires an intentional killing, mental-state evidence could become central.
What Beneficiaries and Heirs May Recover
In California trust and probate litigation, the “damages” conversation looks different than in a personal-injury case. Depending on the facts, interested parties may seek:
- Redirection of a disqualified beneficiary’s share to contingent or remainder beneficiaries under the slayer statute.
- Surcharge against a trustee who allegedly made imprudent distributions, including recovery of fees, interest, and in some cases double damages for bad-faith conduct under the Probate Code.
- Disgorgement of funds paid to third parties if a court finds the beneficiary was never legally entitled to them.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs, which may be awarded from the trust in appropriate circumstances.
- Wrongful-death damages in a separate civil action under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, which can include loss of financial support, loss of companionship, and funeral expenses.
- Punitive damages in the wrongful-death-adjacent survival action, where permitted by statute.
Evidence That Strengthens a Case
When a family contests a trust distribution — especially one tangled up with alleged violence — the evidentiary record is everything. Useful categories often include:
- The trust instrument, every amendment, and the funding documents.
- Trustee accountings, bank records, and distribution ledgers.
- Communications between the settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries.
- Police reports, autopsy findings, and criminal discovery (where permitted).
- Medical and psychiatric records relevant to intent and capacity.
- Testimony from the drafting attorney about the settlors’ intent.
- Expert declarations from forensic accountants, fiduciary-practice experts, and mental-health professionals.
What to Do Next
Families watching a story like this often realize their own estate plan is unprepared for a worst-case scenario. If you are a beneficiary, trustee, or parent reviewing your plan, consider these conservative steps:
- Preserve every document. Pull your trust, any amendments, funding records, and recent accountings into one secure place.
- Do not communicate with other parties through insurers, banks, or opposing counsel without legal advice — statements can be used later.
- Document your concerns in writing and date them. Memory fades; contemporaneous notes matter.
- Mind the deadlines. California imposes short statutes of limitations on trust contests (often 120 days from a Probate Code § 16061.7 notice) and on creditor claims. Missing them can be fatal.
- Think about distribution standards. Parents can build in guardrails — HEMS standards, incentive provisions, or trustee discretion triggers — that reduce the risk of a crisis like the one in the headlines.
If you or a loved one are navigating a disputed trust, a trustee facing impossible choices, or a parent who wants to draft a plan that holds up under the worst circumstances, our team at LA | Estate Plans is here to help. We offer confidential consultations and will walk you through your options at your pace.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can someone accused but not convicted of killing a parent still inherit in California?
Under California’s slayer statute, a probate court can decide the issue on a civil preponderance-of-the-evidence standard without waiting for a criminal verdict. That means an accused beneficiary may be barred from inheriting even before a jury rules on guilt. The person is still presumed innocent in the criminal case, but the two proceedings are separate.
What is California’s slayer statute, in plain English?
It is a set of Probate Code sections that treat a person who feloniously and intentionally kills a decedent as if they had died first. The result is that the alleged killer takes nothing by will, trust, intestacy, or beneficiary designation. The rule exists because California public policy will not allow someone to profit from an alleged wrongful killing.
Can a trustee be sued for giving money to a beneficiary who is later disqualified?
Possibly. A trustee who distributes funds imprudently or in the face of clear warning signs may be subject to a surcharge action for breach of fiduciary duty. Trustees in difficult situations should seek court instructions under Probate Code § 17200 before releasing significant funds.
Can attorneys who were paid from a contested trust be forced to return the money?
In some cases, yes. If a court ultimately finds the beneficiary was never entitled to the funds, prior distributions — including those paid to defense counsel or other third parties — may be subject to clawback or disgorgement. The analysis is fact-specific and can turn on good-faith receipt.
How long do I have to contest a trust in California?
If you receive a notice under Probate Code § 16061.7, you generally have 120 days from the date the notice is served to file a contest. Other deadlines, such as creditor claims and petitions to compel accountings, run on different clocks. Missing these windows can permanently extinguish your rights, so act quickly.
What if my loved one’s trust does not say anything about this kind of situation?
California law fills many gaps through the Probate Code and case law, including the slayer statute and default trustee duties. However, silence in the instrument can lead to expensive litigation. Updating your plan to address incapacity, criminal conduct, and distribution standards is one of the cheapest forms of family insurance available.
Does a mental illness diagnosis change whether the slayer statute applies?
It may. The slayer statute requires a felonious and intentional killing, so evidence that the alleged killer lacked the required mental state can be relevant. Probate courts can weigh psychiatric evidence differently than criminal courts, and the outcomes do not always match.
How can parents prevent a worst-case scenario in their own trust?
Thoughtful drafting is the best protection. Options include HEMS (health, education, maintenance, and support) distribution standards, independent co-trustees, incentive clauses, and clear language addressing what happens if a beneficiary is accused or convicted of harming a settlor. An experienced California estate attorney can tailor these tools to your family.
Original reporting: ktxs.com.