The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFAADA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-7, governs how fiduciaries can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between a user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset record and the terms of service of a digital asset custodian. When a user creates a digital asset record that directs a fiduciary to a specific digital asset, this record generally controls over conflicting terms of service from the custodian. This principle is designed to ensure that a user’s explicit wishes regarding their digital assets are honored, even if those wishes differ from standard contractual terms. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as documented in their digital asset record. Therefore, if a digital asset record clearly designates a recipient for specific digital assets, that designation is legally binding on the custodian, provided the record is valid under the SDUFAADA. This contrasts with situations where no specific record exists, in which case a fiduciary’s access might be more limited by the custodian’s terms of service or by the default provisions of the SDUFAADA itself, which often grants custodians discretion over assets not explicitly addressed by a user’s record.

South Dakota Codified Law § 43-43-1 defines a digital asset as an electronic record that is associated with a unique cryptographic key or other mechanism of authentication by which the possessor of the key or mechanism of authentication may control or dispose of an item of value. This definition encompasses a wide range of digital property, including cryptocurrencies, digital collectibles, and other forms of electronic data that hold economic or personal value. The key aspect is the ability to control or dispose of the asset through a unique identifier or authentication method. When considering the transfer of digital assets upon death, South Dakota law, particularly in Chapter 43-43, provides a framework that prioritizes the terms of any governing instrument or contract. If a digital asset custodian has a policy regarding the distribution of digital assets, that policy generally governs. Absent such a policy, the law permits a court to order the custodian to transfer the asset to a person entitled to it under a will or by law. The definition is broad enough to include non-fungible tokens (NFTs) as they are electronic records associated with unique cryptographic keys that allow for control and disposition of the digital item of value.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act (SDUDAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-6, addresses the rights of beneficiaries to access digital assets upon the death of the account holder. Specifically, SDCL § 59-6-11 outlines the exceptions to the general rule that a digital asset fiduciary’s duty to the user is owed to the user’s personal representative or successor. This exception pertains to digital assets that are the subject of a specific provision in a trust or will, or a separate writing that directs the manner in which the digital asset shall be managed or distributed. In such cases, the fiduciary must act in accordance with that provision. Therefore, if the digital asset is specifically addressed in a valid trust document, the fiduciary’s actions must align with the terms of that trust, overriding the general directive to follow the instructions of the personal representative. The core principle is that specific testamentary or inter vivos trust provisions regarding digital assets take precedence.

The South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 43-43B, specifically addressing digital assets, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that an owner has a right to engage with or control. This definition encompasses various forms of digital property, including cryptocurrencies, digital securities, and other forms of digital value. The law further clarifies that a “digital asset custodian” is a person or entity that has possession or control of a digital asset on behalf of another person. When a digital asset custodian is involved, the process for transferring or accessing these assets upon the owner’s death is governed by specific provisions within this chapter. The law allows for a custodian to transfer a digital asset to a designated beneficiary or the personal representative of the estate, provided the custodian receives a valid, court-issued order or a copy of the decedent’s death certificate and proof of identity. Importantly, the custodian is not obligated to provide access or transfer the asset if the terms of service governing the digital asset prohibit such actions or if the custodian has a reasonable belief that the requested action would violate applicable law. The key here is the custodian’s reliance on a “court-issued order” or the proper documentation to facilitate the transfer, ensuring legal compliance and protection against unauthorized access.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFADAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-8, grants fiduciaries certain rights concerning a user’s digital assets. A fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access a user’s digital assets if the user has granted them explicit permission in a digital asset control document, or if the user’s terms of service agreement with a digital asset custodian allows it. However, the SDUFADAA also includes provisions that allow a fiduciary to petition a court for access if no explicit grant is made and the terms of service are silent or restrictive. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the user’s intent regarding their disposition. For instance, a user’s intent regarding the distribution or termination of an account holding digital assets is a crucial factor. If the user’s intent is to have the digital asset treated as a specific type of property, like a tangible asset, or if the intent is to terminate the account, the fiduciary’s powers are clarified. The SDUFADAA prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their will, trust, or a separate digital asset power of attorney. In the absence of such explicit instructions, the Act provides a framework for custodians to respond to fiduciary requests, often involving a court order. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s duty to manage the user’s estate, including digital assets.

South Dakota Codified Law § 29A-6-101 et seq., specifically the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFUADAA), governs how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Under this act, a person can grant access to digital assets through an online tool or a separate document. If the owner has not provided specific instructions, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian and South Dakota law. When a fiduciary seeks access to digital assets, the custodian must grant access if presented with a valid court order or if the user has provided specific instructions to the custodian, either through an online tool or a separate document as defined by law. In the absence of explicit user instructions, South Dakota law prioritizes the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. However, the law also allows for a court to override the terms of service if necessary to fulfill the user’s intent. The core principle is to balance the user’s privacy and intent with the fiduciary’s need to manage assets. The statute emphasizes that the custodian must comply with a valid court order directing the disclosure of digital assets.

South Dakota Codified Law § 29A-1-301(21) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include any representation of value that is recorded on, available through, or transmitted by a computer program or other technology. This definition encompasses a wide range of electronic property. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UfADAA), as adopted in South Dakota, governs how fiduciaries, such as executors or trustees, can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. A key aspect of UfADAA is the concept of a “user’s intent.” If a digital asset custodian has a policy that restricts access to a digital asset, a fiduciary’s access is subject to that policy unless the user has explicitly granted access through a separate document. In this scenario, the user’s will explicitly grants the executor access to all digital assets. The South Dakota law prioritizes user intent as expressed in an electronic estate plan or a separate writing that specifically grants access. Therefore, the executor, acting as a fiduciary, has the authority to access the cryptocurrency wallet, even if the custodian’s standard terms of service might otherwise impose limitations, because the user’s will clearly expresses their intent for such access. The will serves as the controlling document for granting fiduciary access to digital assets under South Dakota law, superseding general custodian terms of service that do not specifically prohibit such access via a user’s directive.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFADAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-6, governs how a fiduciary can access a principal’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between custodians who grant access and the specific types of digital assets. Custodians are generally required to provide a fiduciary with access to digital assets, provided the fiduciary has the legal authority to access them. However, the act also outlines specific exceptions and limitations. For instance, certain digital assets, like those that are personal in nature and not primarily commercial, may have different access rules depending on the terms of service of the online platform. The act emphasizes that the fiduciary’s authority is derived from the user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset power of attorney or a will. When a custodian denies access, the fiduciary may seek a court order. The act aims to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage digital assets effectively. The question revolves around the specific statutory framework in South Dakota that dictates a custodian’s obligation to grant access to a fiduciary.

South Dakota Codified Law § 29A-6-101 defines a digital asset as an electronic record that the owner has a right to create, modify, delete, display, or control. This definition encompasses a broad range of digital property. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (Ufada), as adopted in South Dakota, governs how fiduciaries, such as executors or trustees, can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. Under SDCL § 29A-6-101, a digital asset is defined as an electronic record that the owner has a right to create, modify, delete, display, or control. This definition is crucial because it distinguishes digital assets from mere data or information that might be accessible to others without the owner’s specific rights. For instance, public social media posts might not qualify if the user does not have exclusive control over their modification or deletion in the manner contemplated by the law. The law further outlines that a digital asset includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, digital photographs, digital music, digital videos, digital documents, digital books, digital games, digital software, digital subscriptions, digital financial accounts, and digital virtual currency. The key element is the owner’s right to control the asset in its electronic form. Therefore, understanding the scope of “control” and “right to create, modify, delete, display” is paramount when determining if an electronic record qualifies as a digital asset under South Dakota law. The question tests the understanding of this foundational definition by presenting scenarios of electronic records and requiring the identification of those that fit the statutory definition based on the owner’s control.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFADAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 43-44, governs how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between the content of electronic communications and other digital assets. SDCL § 43-44-24 specifically addresses the fiduciary’s right to access electronic communications. This section states that a fiduciary may not access the content of electronic communications of the decedent unless the user has granted explicit consent to the fiduciary to access the content. This consent can be provided through an online tool provided by a digital asset custodian, or by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Without such explicit consent, a fiduciary’s access is generally limited to digital assets other than the content of electronic communications. Therefore, a fiduciary’s ability to access the content of an email sent by a deceased individual is contingent upon obtaining specific authorization for that content.

South Dakota Codified Law § 43-40-1 et seq., the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UUPDAA), governs how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. The Act establishes a hierarchy of control. First, a user can grant access through an “online tool” provided by a custodian of digital assets. If no online tool is used or if the tool does not grant specific access, the terms of service agreement with the custodian may dictate access. Failing these, the user’s will or a trust document can grant access, provided it specifically refers to digital assets. If none of these specific directives exist, the law of distribution of the user’s property, including South Dakota’s intestacy laws or specific provisions for digital assets in a will, will govern. In the absence of any of these, a court order may be necessary. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through these mechanisms. Therefore, when a user has not utilized an online tool and their will does not explicitly mention digital assets, the terms of service agreement with the digital asset custodian become the primary determinant of fiduciary access, superseding general property distribution laws that do not specifically address digital assets.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-7, governs how fiduciaries can access a decedent’s digital assets. Specifically, SDCL § 59-7-10 outlines the requirements for a fiduciary to gain access to digital assets when the user has not provided specific instructions or granted access through an online tool. This section establishes a hierarchy of access. First, a fiduciary must possess a court order or a valid power of attorney that specifically grants authority over digital assets. If such documentation is absent, the fiduciary must then be able to demonstrate that access is necessary to administer the estate or trust. The law prioritizes the user’s intent and privacy. Therefore, if the user’s terms of service agreement with a digital asset custodian explicitly prohibits disclosure to a fiduciary, or if the user has taken steps to encrypt or otherwise secure their digital assets in a manner that prevents access without a key or password, the fiduciary’s access may be restricted even with a court order, unless the order specifically compels disclosure. In the scenario presented, the user’s terms of service explicitly prohibit disclosure to a fiduciary without a court order. Furthermore, the user has encrypted their personal cloud storage, requiring a unique passphrase for access. This dual layer of protection, the terms of service restriction and the encryption, necessitates a court order that specifically addresses both the custodian’s terms and the encryption method. Without such a specific order, the fiduciary cannot compel access.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act (SDUDAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 43-42, addresses the rights and duties related to digital assets upon a user’s death or incapacitation. A critical aspect of this law is the distinction between the content of digital assets and the electronic devices on which they are stored. The SDUDAA clarifies that a digital asset is not the device itself, but rather the data or content stored on it. For instance, an email, a digital photograph, or a cryptocurrency balance are digital assets, whereas the computer or smartphone housing them is tangible personal property. SDCL § 43-42-1(3) defines a digital asset as an electronic record in which an user has a right or interest. This definition is crucial for understanding how these assets are passed on. SDCL § 43-42-6 establishes that a digital asset owner’s agent under a power of attorney can access and control digital assets, subject to the terms of the power of attorney and any applicable terms of service. However, the SDUDAA does not automatically grant the agent ownership of the physical device. The disposition of tangible personal property, including electronic devices, is governed by separate provisions of South Dakota law, typically the Uniform Probate Code (SDCL Title 29A) if the owner is deceased, or general property law if incapacitated. Therefore, an agent acting under a power of attorney for digital assets has authority over the data and content, but not necessarily the physical hardware containing that data, unless the power of attorney explicitly grants such authority for tangible property or the terms of service of the digital asset custodian permit it. The law aims to provide a framework for managing digital legacies, acknowledging that digital assets are distinct from physical possessions.

The South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 43-40A, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), governs how a fiduciary can access a principal’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 43-40A-17 outlines the rights of a fiduciary with respect to a digital asset of a deceased user. This section states that a fiduciary may, subject to any applicable law other than South Dakota’s UFDAA, access the content of electronic communications of the deceased user. However, this access is restricted to the extent that the fiduciary is also the addressee or a recipient of the electronic communication. This means the fiduciary cannot generally access all communications but only those where they were directly involved as a participant. The law aims to balance the need for fiduciaries to manage an estate with the privacy interests in electronic communications. It distinguishes between “content of electronic communications” and other digital assets like digital photos or documents. The statute does not grant broad access to all communications, but rather a targeted ability to review those communications in which the fiduciary was a direct party. This limitation is crucial for maintaining the privacy expectations of individuals regarding their communications with third parties.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act, codified in SDCL Chapter 59-6, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, SDCL § 59-6-10 addresses the authority of a digital asset fiduciary. When a user creates an online account with a digital asset custodian, such as a cryptocurrency exchange or a cloud storage provider, and designates a fiduciary in their terms of service or account settings, that fiduciary is granted specific rights to access and manage the digital assets held by the custodian. This authority is generally contingent upon the user’s intent as expressed in their account or in a separate communication to the custodian. The law clarifies that a custodian may not refuse to honor a fiduciary’s request to access or control digital assets solely because the custodian has its own procedures for accessing digital assets, provided the fiduciary provides the custodian with proof of their authority and identity. The custodian’s obligation is to grant the fiduciary access in accordance with the user’s instructions and the terms of service. This provision ensures that individuals can plan for the disposition of their digital assets upon incapacitation or death, with their chosen fiduciaries being able to act on their behalf. The core principle is that the user’s intent, as manifested through their account settings or a direct communication to the custodian, dictates the fiduciary’s access rights.

South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 43-43B, the South Dakota Digital Assets Act, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, Section 43-43B-10 addresses the distribution of digital assets upon a user’s death. This section clarifies that a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access and control a digital asset if the user has granted such access through an online tool or by other means. The law distinguishes between a user’s intent and the terms of service of a digital asset custodian. While custodians may have their own policies, the Act empowers the user to dictate how their digital assets are managed, including during their lifetime and after their death. The critical aspect is the user’s explicit intent, which can be manifested through a will, trust, or a specific digital asset control agreement or online tool provided by the custodian. Therefore, even if a custodian’s terms of service are silent or restrictive, a user’s clearly expressed intent through a valid legal instrument or a provided online tool supersedes those terms for the purpose of distribution. The law emphasizes the user’s control over their digital estate, aligning with the broader principles of estate planning and digital property rights. The correct answer hinges on the user’s expressed intent as legally recognized under the Act, which prioritizes direct user directives over potentially conflicting or unaddressed custodian terms of service.

The South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 43-43B, the Uniform Digital Assets Act, governs the rights and responsibilities related to digital assets. This chapter defines a digital asset as an electronic record that is associated with a right and a record of the right. A digital asset custodian is defined as a person or entity that has possession of, control over, or provides services for digital assets on behalf of another person. The law specifically addresses how a digital asset custodian must respond to a request for disclosure of digital assets. When a custodian receives a valid request, they are generally required to provide information about the digital assets to the user or their representative, subject to certain limitations and procedures. The law aims to provide clarity and legal certainty for individuals and their digital legacies, particularly in the context of estate planning and access after death. It balances the need for access with the privacy and security of digital assets, outlining specific requirements for custodians to verify the legitimacy of requests and to protect the assets themselves. The statute emphasizes the importance of the custodian’s terms of service and user agreements, which may further define the custodian’s obligations and the user’s rights regarding their digital assets.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFADAA), codified in South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 59-7, provides a framework for how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. The Act distinguishes between content that is stored by a user with a third-party custodian and content that is stored directly by the user. For digital assets held by a custodian, the Act prioritizes the terms of service agreement between the user and the custodian, unless the user has provided specific instructions in a digital asset power of attorney or a will. Section 59-7-14 of the SDUFADAA outlines the priority of these documents. A digital asset power of attorney, if validly executed and specifically granting access to digital assets, generally takes precedence over the custodian’s terms of service for the purpose of granting fiduciary access. However, the custodian’s terms of service can still govern certain aspects of access, such as the method of verification or the scope of information that can be disclosed. In this scenario, while the will of Ms. Anya Sharma might express a desire for her digital assets to be managed, the SDUFADAA requires that a specific digital asset power of attorney or a court order be the primary mechanism for a fiduciary to access content held by a custodian, superseding the general provisions of a will for this specific purpose. Therefore, the most direct and legally recognized method for Mr. Ben Carter, as the personal representative, to gain access to Ms. Sharma’s cloud storage account, which is a digital asset held by a third-party custodian, would be through a valid digital asset power of attorney or a court order specifically authorizing such access. The SDUFADAA aims to balance the user’s intent with the practicalities of digital asset management and the contractual relationships with custodians.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFAADA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-7, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between a user’s intent expressed in a digital asset control document and the default provisions when such a document is absent or insufficient. Under SDCL § 59-7-14, a fiduciary who has been granted authority to manage digital assets by a user’s will, trust, or power of attorney may be granted access. However, the act prioritizes the user’s intent. If a user has provided a digital asset control document, that document dictates access, overriding other provisions. If no such document exists, the fiduciary’s authority is generally determined by the terms of the governing instrument (will, trust, POA) and applicable law. SDCL § 59-7-15 outlines that a fiduciary can request access from a digital asset custodian. The custodian must respond within 60 days. If the user has not provided a digital asset control document, the custodian must grant access if the fiduciary provides a certificate of appointment or other documentation evidencing their authority, and a copy of the user’s death certificate. The key is that the user’s express intent, as documented, is paramount. Therefore, even if a fiduciary has broad powers under a power of attorney, if the user’s digital asset control document explicitly prohibits access to a specific digital asset, the fiduciary is bound by that prohibition. The law aims to balance the need for fiduciaries to manage assets with the user’s right to privacy and control over their digital legacy.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFADAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-6, outlines how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Section 59-6-10 specifically addresses the disclosure of digital assets and digital communications. Under this provision, a fiduciary can request disclosure of digital assets from a digital asset custodian. The custodian must provide the digital assets and digital communications to the fiduciary unless the terms of service or an online tool explicitly prohibit disclosure. The law distinguishes between digital assets and digital communications. Digital assets are electronic records in which an individual has a right or interest, while digital communications are electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and similar electronic records. The critical aspect here is that while a fiduciary can request disclosure of digital assets, the custodian can refuse disclosure of digital communications if the terms of service or an online tool prohibit it. This is a key distinction in how fiduciaries gain access to different types of digital content. The question asks about the fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets, which is generally permitted, but the options involve specific conditions or limitations. The correct option must reflect the general right of a fiduciary to access digital assets as outlined in the SDUFADAA, without being overly restrictive or misrepresenting the law’s intent regarding digital communications.

The South Dakota Codified Law § 43-41B-1 defines a digital asset broadly to include any record, digital representation of value, or contractual right that is treated as a commodity or asset, and is stored or transmitted using a computer network. This definition encompasses a wide range of assets, including cryptocurrency, digital collectibles, and other forms of digital property. The law further specifies that a digital asset is a “virtual currency” if it is a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender in any jurisdiction and is not redeemable by any person other than the issuer of the virtual currency. The key aspect here is the intention and function of the asset within a digital ecosystem. For instance, a digital token that represents ownership in a physical asset or provides access to a service, while digital, may not fit the specific “virtual currency” definition if its primary utility is not as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value in the manner typically associated with cryptocurrencies. Therefore, when considering whether a digital asset falls under the specific regulatory purview of virtual currency in South Dakota, the analysis must focus on its functional characteristics and how it is presented and utilized by its issuer and users. The law’s intent is to capture assets that operate similarly to traditional currencies in the digital realm, regardless of their underlying technology.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDU FADA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-8, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A key aspect of this law is the distinction between granting access through a digital asset account agreement and through a separate document of authority. When a user creates a digital asset account, the terms of service or user agreement for that account can explicitly grant or deny a fiduciary access to specific digital assets. This is a direct contractual provision between the user and the service provider. However, the SDU FADA also recognizes that a user might wish to grant access to a fiduciary through a separate, more general document, such as a will, trust, or power of attorney. For a fiduciary to gain access to digital assets via such a document of authority, the law requires that the document must specifically grant the fiduciary authority to access digital assets. This means a general power of attorney that does not explicitly mention digital assets would not be sufficient under the SDU FADA to grant access. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in these documents. Therefore, if the user’s will or power of attorney clearly states the intent to grant access to digital assets, and names a fiduciary, that fiduciary can then access those assets, provided the terms of the digital asset account itself do not prohibit such access. The law balances the user’s privacy with the need for fiduciaries to manage digital assets.

South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 43-43B, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), governs how a person can grant access to their digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. Under SDCL § 43-43B-101, a “digital asset” is defined broadly to include electronic records in which a person has a right or interest. This definition encompasses various forms of digital property. SDCL § 43-43B-102 outlines the methods by which a user can grant access to their digital assets, including through an “online tool” provided by a custodian or by specifying access in a “digital-assets power of attorney” or a “digital-assets will.” The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through these instruments. In the absence of such explicit instructions, SDCL § 43-43B-103 dictates that a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, may access digital assets that the user held in a personal, rather than business, capacity, provided the fiduciary has a legal right to the asset. However, access is generally limited to content that the user had a right to access. Custodians can refuse access if their terms of service conflict with the user’s directive, but they must inform the user or fiduciary of this refusal and the reason. The core principle is to respect the user’s control over their digital legacy.

The South Dakota Codified Law § 43-40-1 defines a digital asset as an electronic record that is associated with a unique cryptographic key, used by a person to establish dominion and control over the digital asset. This definition is crucial for determining what constitutes a digital asset under South Dakota law. The scenario involves a cryptocurrency wallet, which is an electronic record, and the associated private key that grants control over the cryptocurrency. Therefore, the cryptocurrency held within the wallet is considered a digital asset under this statute. The executor’s role in managing the estate includes identifying, locating, and controlling these assets. The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, codified in Chapter 59-15, governs how fiduciaries, such as executors, can access and manage digital assets. Specifically, SDCL § 59-15-14 outlines the fiduciary’s duty to a user to access, create, or manage the user’s digital assets. This duty is to act in accordance with the user’s instructions and, if no instructions exist, to act in a manner that the fiduciary reasonably believes the user would have wanted. The question asks about the executor’s authority to access the digital assets. Under South Dakota law, the executor, as a fiduciary, has a legal right and obligation to manage digital assets of the deceased, provided they follow the procedures outlined in the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act and any specific instructions in the decedent’s will or other controlling documents. The executor’s actions are guided by the principle of acting in the best interest of the estate and beneficiaries, similar to other estate assets.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDCL Chapter 59-7) governs how fiduciaries can access digital assets. Specifically, SDCL § 59-7-17 addresses the authority of a fiduciary to access a digital asset account. This section states that a fiduciary has authority to access a digital asset account of the user only if the user has granted that authority in the digital asset user agreement or in a separate document that specifically grants the fiduciary access to the digital asset account. A general authorization in a will or power of attorney is insufficient on its own to grant access to digital asset accounts. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their digital asset agreements or specific authorizations. Without such explicit consent, a fiduciary’s access is restricted, even if they hold a broad power of attorney. Therefore, the key is the existence of a specific grant of authority within the user’s digital asset account terms or a distinct, explicit authorization document.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act (SDUDAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 43-41A, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacity. A critical aspect of this act is the procedure for granting access to a digital asset custodian. Under SDCL § 43-41A-110, a user may grant access to their digital assets by creating a “digital asset control document.” This document is defined as a legally enforceable online tool, such as a digital will or a separate online document, that specifically grants authority to an agent or delegate to access or control the user’s digital assets. The law distinguishes this from a general power of attorney or a will that does not specifically reference digital assets or the SDUDAA. The core principle is that the custodian must have a clear, unambiguous instruction from the user, typically through a document that meets the statutory definition of a digital asset control document. A simple email to the custodian without the formality of a control document, or a will that only generally disposes of property without specific reference to digital asset access, would not satisfy the SDUDAA’s requirements for granting an agent access. Therefore, a document explicitly designated as a digital asset control document, or one that functions as such by providing clear instructions for digital asset access, is paramount.

The scenario describes a situation involving a digital asset, specifically a cryptocurrency, held in a trust. The core legal question is how South Dakota law governs the distribution of this digital asset upon the settlor’s death. South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) Chapter 55-18 addresses the creation and administration of digital asset trusts. SDCL 55-18-15 specifically addresses the trustee’s duty to provide information concerning a trust’s digital assets. When a trust instrument is silent on the disposition of digital assets, the general provisions of the trust, including those related to asset distribution upon the settlor’s death, would apply. In this case, the trust instrument clearly outlines that upon the settlor’s death, all remaining assets are to be distributed to the settlor’s niece. Therefore, the trustee is obligated to distribute the cryptocurrency to the niece as per the trust’s terms. The law does not mandate a separate court process for the distribution of digital assets held in a trust, as long as the trust instrument is clear and the trustee has the authority to act. The specific mention of “digital assets” in the trust instrument confirms the settlor’s intent to include such assets within the trust’s corpus. The trustee’s role is to administer the trust according to its terms and applicable South Dakota law, which in this instance leads to the direct distribution to the designated beneficiary.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act (SDUDAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 43-44, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. A key aspect of this law is how it treats digital assets in the context of estate planning and administration. Specifically, the SDUDAA grants a user the ability to grant a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, access to their digital assets. This access is typically granted through an online tool provided by a custodian or by specific provisions within a will or trust that clearly identify the digital asset and the fiduciary. The law emphasizes the user’s intent and the terms of service of the custodian. When a user dies, their will or other estate planning documents dictate the disposition of their digital assets. If the will explicitly grants the executor access to specific digital assets, and the custodian’s terms of service permit such access under these circumstances, then the executor can indeed manage these assets. However, the SDUDAA does not automatically override a custodian’s terms of service. The law aims to provide a framework for managing digital assets, but the practical implementation often depends on the agreements between the user and the custodian. Therefore, the executor’s ability to access and manage the deceased’s digital assets hinges on the clarity of the will, the custodian’s policies, and the SDUDAA’s provisions. In this scenario, the will clearly names the executor and specifies the intent to transfer control of all digital assets, including cryptocurrency wallets, to the executor. Assuming the cryptocurrency custodian’s terms of service allow for executor access upon presentation of valid legal documentation, and given the SDUDAA’s framework for granting fiduciary access, the executor would be empowered to manage these assets. The SDUDAA provides the legal basis for the executor to act, but the custodian’s terms and the specific instructions in the will are crucial for actual access. The SDUDAA recognizes that digital asset custodians may have their own terms of service that can affect how a user’s digital assets are handled after their death, but it also provides mechanisms for fiduciaries to gain access.

The South Dakota Uniform Digital Assets Act (SDUDAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 43-44, provides a framework for managing digital assets upon a person’s death. A critical aspect is the distinction between “custodians” and “content providers.” Custodians are entities that hold digital assets on behalf of users, such as cloud storage providers or social media platforms. Content providers, on the other hand, are those who create or own the digital content itself, like an artist selling digital music or a writer selling e-books. The SDUDAA grants the personal representative of a deceased user’s estate the authority to access and control the user’s digital assets. However, the extent of this access is often governed by the terms of service agreements between the user and the custodian. When a user’s digital assets are stored with a custodian, and the user has not provided specific instructions in their will or a separate digital asset power of attorney, the custodian’s terms of service will dictate how the personal representative can access or transfer those assets. The SDUDAA aims to balance the deceased’s intent with the custodian’s privacy and security obligations. It allows for access to digital assets, but this access is not absolute and must respect contractual agreements. Therefore, in the absence of a specific user directive, the custodian’s policies are paramount in determining the disposition of digital assets held by them.

The South Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (SDUFAA), codified in SDCL Chapter 59-7, governs how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a deceased user’s digital assets. Section 59-7-13 of the SDUFAA specifically addresses the disclosure of digital assets by a custodian. A custodian is permitted to disclose a user’s digital assets to a fiduciary if the user has granted specific consent to the fiduciary. This consent can be in the form of a digital asset control document, a will, a trust, or by the user directly informing the custodian. If no such consent exists, or if the custodian has a reasonable belief that the disclosure would violate a term of service agreement that the user agreed to, the custodian may refuse disclosure. However, the SDUFAA also outlines a process where a fiduciary can petition a court for an order directing the custodian to disclose digital assets. The court order is a powerful tool that can override certain limitations on disclosure, provided the court finds that disclosure is necessary and appropriate. The question asks about the legal basis for a fiduciary to access digital assets when the user has not provided explicit consent in a control document, will, or trust, and the custodian has not otherwise agreed. In such a scenario, the fiduciary’s primary recourse under SDUFAA is to seek a court order compelling the custodian to provide access. This demonstrates the SDUFAA’s balance between user privacy and the fiduciary’s duty to administer the estate or trust.