Hypothetical question on inheritance

Suppose Rich Old Man marries Young Floozy. He has several children from prior marriage who hate YF – they think she’s a gold-digger, and a threat to their inheritances.

After a couple years of increasingly unblissful marriage, ROM realizes that his kids were right, and decides to divorce YF. The first step he takes is to draw up a new will, leaving YF a pair of cubic zirconium earrings (the size of her heart and just as valuable, it says) and with all the rest split evenly between the, let’s say, four kids. This will is drawn up, signed, witness, filed --whatever, all necessary steps properly performed.

The next day YF invites him to join her on a ‘no hard feelings’ last sail. ROM mentions to someone he plans to go.

A few days later, calls start going back and forth: ROM is missing appointments, and on investigation they discover he hasn’t been seen since leaving his private club the morning of the day he was supposed to go sailing with YF.

Foul play is suspected, but the investigation goes nowhere: YF says she invited ROM to a sail, but he never showed up, so she went sailing alone. There’s no witness to say different, no evidence of foul play on the boat. Maybe he developed amnesia and wandered away, she suggests. Maybe he’s found god and is off selling flowers for some guru. Whatever. She’s ‘sure’ he’s fine and is certainly old enough to decide for himself where he goes and when.

The children are convinced YF did the old man in and dumped the body at sea – but there’s simply no evidence.

Now, my question is: Is there anything to keep YF from enjoying herself by spending all of ROM’s estate? According to the vague info gleaned from tv/movies, someone has to be missing for seven years before they can be declared dead. In the meantime, isn’t YF presumed to still be his wife, and therefore in control of the money?

Now it’s seven years later, and the children get ROM declared dead. What is the ‘date of death’? The date he was last seen, that is, seven years earlier, when there was a multiimillion dollar estate and thus YF is legally bound to cough the money up to be divided as dictated by the will? Or is the ‘date of death’ when the declaration is made, and since by that point YF had spent all the money, each kid is now due exactly 1/4 of nothing?

Suppose YF didn’t just consume the money. Suppose she used it to buy property, jewels, valuable artworks, etc. Could the children seize them, in either case? Are they part of ‘his estate’ even though he never laid eyes on them?
What if she converted ROM’s estate into cash and set up some sort of trust that gives it all to charity – but until she dies she draws some fabulous salary to serve as its trustee. Could she continue to enjoy ROM’s money that way while thumbing her nose at the children?

No. She’s his wife but, unless she lives somewhere with relatively unusual laws, she’s not in control of his assets.

She will have some control over assets which he has previously put into joint names (and which are still held in joint names, notwithstanding the impending divorce), but assets in his name are his, not hers, the marriage notwithstanding. She wants access to them, she’ll have to head off to court. The kids can head there too, and point to the impending divorce, and the terms of the will as evidence of their father’s wishes with respect to his property.

The “date of death” is largely irrelevant. Regardless of when he died, his heirs are entitled only to what is actually in his estate. If he died on Monday, and on Wednesday a massive stock market crash wiped out 90% of the value of his estate, they’d have to divide the remaining 10% among themselves. It doesn’t matter whether the decline in value happened before or after his death.

The only circumstance where it might matter is when the decline in value happened after the appointment of the executor <i>because of the alleged negligence or breach of duty of the executor</I.>, in which case there might be a remedy against the executor. But the executor can’t be appointed until he is declared dead, and there is no retrospective appointment.

If, at a time when he was missing but not yet declared dead, and YF had got some kind of court order appointing herself administrator of his assets (an order which she would probably have difficulty in getting, if there was evidence of an imminent divorce) and then misapplied his assets, there might be a remedy against her. However her duty as the administrator of the assets of a (presumed) living person is to that person (or, if he is insolvent, to his creditors) and not to his putative heirs. Hence the kids couldn’t sue her on their own behalf. What they could do is try to get their father declared dead (in most places there is no fixed 7-year rule for this) and have themselves appointed as executors of his estate, and then sue her on behalf of the estate. Or, without having him declared dead, they could try to get her removed as the administrator of his assets and have themselves appointed, and then sue her for breach of her duty <i>to ROM</i> as administrator of his assets.