The Ohio Revised Code, specifically Chapter 1349 concerning Digital Assets, governs the rights and responsibilities related to digital assets. When a person dies, the disposition of their digital assets is often addressed by the terms of their will or other estate planning documents. However, the law also provides default rules for situations where the estate plan is silent or insufficient. Ohio law generally permits a person to designate beneficiaries for specific digital assets, similar to how beneficiaries are designated for financial accounts. This designation, if validly made, controls the disposition of that digital asset upon the owner’s death, overriding conflicting provisions in a will or trust for that specific asset. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UfADAA), as adopted and modified in Ohio, provides the framework for this. It distinguishes between “access” to digital assets and “content” of digital assets. While a will might express an intent to distribute all digital assets, a specific beneficiary designation on a digital asset account, such as a cloud storage service or an online gaming account, will typically govern the disposition of that particular asset. Therefore, the direct designation of a beneficiary for a specific digital asset takes precedence for that asset’s distribution.

The Ohio Digital Assets Act, codified in Chapter 1349 of the Ohio Revised Code, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, ORC Section 1349.03 outlines the requirements for a digital asset custodian to provide a user with access to their digital assets upon the user’s death. This section mandates that a custodian must provide a copy of the user’s digital assets to a designated beneficiary or a person authorized to act on behalf of the deceased user’s estate, provided that the custodian has received a valid court order or other sufficient legal documentation confirming the authority of the requesting party. The law also specifies the types of documentation that are considered sufficient, which can include a will, a power of attorney, or letters testamentary. The custodian is permitted to charge a reasonable fee for the services rendered in fulfilling such a request. The act distinguishes between digital assets and tangible personal property, and its provisions are designed to provide clarity and legal recourse for the management and transfer of digital assets after a user’s death, aligning with the broader estate planning landscape in Ohio. The core principle is to balance the user’s intent and the rights of beneficiaries with the operational and security requirements of the custodian.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1349, specifically concerning digital assets, addresses the rights and responsibilities of various parties involved in the management and transfer of digital assets upon the death or incapacity of the owner. When a person dies, their digital assets, much like tangible property, generally pass to their estate. The executor or administrator of the estate, acting under the authority of the probate court, is empowered to manage and distribute the decedent’s assets, including digital ones. ORC Section 1349.01 defines a digital asset broadly, encompassing any electronic record that has value. This includes, but is not limited to, cryptocurrencies, digital art, online accounts, and digital files. The law aims to provide a framework for the orderly transfer of these assets, respecting the owner’s intent as expressed in their will or other estate planning documents, and ensuring that lawful heirs or beneficiaries receive their inheritance. The custodian of a digital asset, such as a cryptocurrency exchange or cloud storage provider, is generally obligated to provide access to the authorized representative of the estate, subject to the terms of service and applicable laws, to facilitate the administration of the estate. The process requires proper legal documentation, such as letters testamentary or letters of administration, to establish the authority of the estate representative. The law seeks to balance the privacy interests of the deceased with the need for efficient estate administration and the rights of beneficiaries.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically within the framework of Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1349, addresses the rights and responsibilities of custodians concerning digital assets. When a custodian receives a record from a user that requests a change in the user’s digital assets, the custodian must respond within a reasonable time. This response time is not explicitly defined by a fixed number of days in the statute but is instead governed by the principle of reasonableness, considering the nature of the digital asset, the custodian’s business practices, and any terms of service agreed upon. The law emphasizes a process where the custodian can review the request, verify the user’s identity and authority, and then either grant, deny, or request further information. Denial must be based on specific grounds outlined or implied by the statute, such as lack of authority, invalid request format, or legal prohibitions. The statute aims to balance the user’s control over their digital assets with the custodian’s need to operate securely and efficiently, preventing unauthorized access or fraudulent transactions. The custodian’s obligation is to act in accordance with the user’s instructions unless there’s a legally recognized reason to refuse.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically drawing from principles found in statutes like the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71, governs how a fiduciary can access and manage a principal’s digital assets. When a principal has not provided specific instructions regarding their digital assets, or when those instructions are ambiguous or incomplete, the law outlines a hierarchy of access. A trustee, acting as a fiduciary for a trust established under Ohio law, generally possesses the authority to access the digital assets of the trust’s settlor or beneficiary if such access is necessary for the administration of the trust and is not explicitly prohibited by the trust document or a specific digital asset service agreement. The law prioritizes the terms of the trust document itself. If the trust document clearly grants or denies access, that provision controls. However, in the absence of such clarity, a trustee’s fiduciary duties, which include the duty of loyalty and the duty to administer the trust prudently, would compel them to seek access if it is essential for fulfilling those duties, such as locating assets, managing investments, or distributing benefits. The Ohio Revised Code § 1339.75(B) outlines that a fiduciary may be granted access by a court order or by the user’s terms of service agreement. Without these, the trustee’s inherent fiduciary responsibilities, when aligned with the trust’s purpose and not contradicted by specific digital asset terms, allow for such access. The core principle is that the fiduciary acts in the best interest of the trust and its beneficiaries, and if digital asset access is instrumental to that, it is generally permissible, provided no overriding prohibition exists.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. When a user has not provided explicit instructions or a digital asset power of attorney, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the online platform and state law. In Ohio, the law prioritizes a user’s online tool or account specifically designated for digital asset control. If no such tool exists, the fiduciary’s access is then determined by the terms of service of the online platform. If the terms of service are silent or ambiguous, the fiduciary may not be able to access the assets. The law aims to balance user privacy with the need for fiduciaries to manage an estate. It’s crucial to understand that a general power of attorney does not automatically grant access to digital assets unless it specifically mentions them or is accompanied by a digital asset power of attorney. The Ohio statute outlines a hierarchy of control, starting with the user’s explicit instructions, then a digital asset power of attorney, followed by the online tool, and finally the platform’s terms of service. Without any of these, access is severely restricted.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., outlines how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. When a user dies or becomes incapacitated, their digital assets need to be managed. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. If the user has a digital estate plan that specifies how their digital assets should be handled, that plan takes precedence. This could be through a will, a trust, or a separate online tool specifically designated for digital asset management. If no such explicit instructions exist, the law then looks to the fiduciary’s authority. A trustee of a trust that holds digital assets, or an agent acting under a durable power of attorney that grants authority over digital assets, can access them. The law clarifies that a custodian of digital assets must provide access to a fiduciary, provided the fiduciary presents proper documentation of their authority. Without a digital estate plan or a fiduciary with specific authority, access can be problematic, often requiring a court order. Therefore, the most direct and legally sound method for a fiduciary to gain access when no specific digital estate plan exists is through a court order authorizing such access, assuming no other explicit instructions or fiduciary designations are present.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the framework established by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1349, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. When a user of a digital asset service contract dies, the law outlines the process by which a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can access and control these assets. ORC 1349.77 dictates that a fiduciary can request access to the digital assets of a deceased user by providing the service provider with a valid court order. This order typically confirms the fiduciary’s appointment and authority to manage the deceased’s estate. The service provider is then obligated to grant the fiduciary access, unless the terms of service explicitly prohibit such access for specific types of digital assets. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy expectations with the need for a lawful representative to manage their digital legacy. The concept of a “digital asset” under Ohio law is broad, encompassing online accounts, digital files, and virtual currency. The fiduciary’s role is to administer these assets as part of the overall estate, subject to the terms of the user’s will or the laws of intestacy.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically within the framework of the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71, addresses the rights of fiduciaries concerning digital assets. When a user creates an account with a service provider and does not explicitly consent to disclosure of content via an online tool or a separate document, the default provisions of the law apply. In such a scenario, the fiduciary’s access is generally limited to information that the user could have accessed or controlled. The law distinguishes between account information and content. For content, such as emails or documents stored on a cloud service, the fiduciary’s access is typically restricted unless the user has provided explicit consent through the service provider’s tool or a valid will or power of attorney that specifically grants such access. Ohio law prioritizes the user’s intent and the terms of service agreed upon, aiming to balance privacy with the fiduciary’s duty to manage the deceased’s estate. Therefore, without explicit consent for content, the fiduciary can only access metadata or information about the account’s operation, not the actual stored digital communications or files.

In Ohio, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), codified in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 through 1339.81, governs how fiduciaries can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. Specifically, Ohio law distinguishes between a user’s intent expressed in a “tool” (like a will or trust) and a “custodian’s” terms of service. If a fiduciary is granted access to digital assets by a will or trust that is executed *after* the user has agreed to a custodian’s terms of service, and those terms of service restrict access, the will or trust generally prevails. However, if the terms of service were agreed to *before* the user executed the will or trust, and the terms of service explicitly prohibit fiduciary access, the terms of service may control. This hierarchy ensures that a user’s most recent expressed intent, when clearly documented in a legal instrument like a will, is given significant weight. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage the user’s estate, including digital assets, for the benefit of heirs or beneficiaries. The core principle is that a specific, later-in-time directive in a legally binding document supersedes general or earlier terms of service that might attempt to limit such access, unless the terms of service were specifically designed to override future testamentary or trust provisions.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the provisions that align with the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio, outlines how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. When a person dies, their digital assets are subject to their estate plan, but access by a successor fiduciary is governed by specific statutory frameworks. Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 to 1339.79 details these rights. A key aspect is the distinction between a user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset control document and the terms of service of a digital asset custodian. If a user has provided a digital asset control document that clearly grants access to a specific fiduciary, that document generally controls over the custodian’s terms of service, provided the document is valid and executed according to Ohio law. However, the law also includes limitations and procedural requirements. For instance, a fiduciary must provide proof of authority and identification to the custodian. The custodian can also refuse access if the terms of service explicitly prohibit it and the user did not provide a control document overriding those terms. In this scenario, Elara’s explicit digital asset control document, which names her son, Mateo, as the fiduciary for her digital assets, takes precedence over the social media platform’s general terms of service that might otherwise restrict access to a deceased user’s account. The law prioritizes the user’s expressed intent through a control document. Therefore, Mateo, as the named fiduciary, is entitled to access Elara’s social media account under Ohio law, assuming the control document meets all legal requirements for validity in Ohio.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically drawing from principles similar to those in the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFOADAA) as adopted in many states, including Ohio, addresses how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. The law generally prioritizes the terms of service of a digital asset custodian over a user’s will or power of attorney if the terms of service prohibit disclosure. However, the law also provides mechanisms for fiduciaries to gain access, often through a court order or by the custodian’s consent. In this scenario, the cryptocurrency exchange (the custodian) has terms of service that explicitly prohibit the disclosure of account information to third parties, including fiduciaries, without a court order. While Mr. Henderson’s will designates his daughter, Ms. Henderson, as the fiduciary for his digital assets, and she presents this document along with a valid power of attorney, these documents alone do not override the custodian’s terms of service, which are contractually binding. Therefore, Ms. Henderson must obtain a court order to compel the exchange to grant her access to her father’s cryptocurrency holdings. This requirement ensures that digital asset custodians are protected from liability by adhering to their established terms of service and that access is granted through a legally recognized process, safeguarding against unauthorized access to sensitive digital assets.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. When a user has not provided explicit instructions in a digital asset control document, or if the service provider’s terms of service conflict with the user’s intent, a hierarchical approach is generally followed. Ohio law prioritizes the user’s online tool or account settings over a will or trust, unless the will or trust explicitly addresses digital assets and the service provider’s terms permit such an override. In this scenario, the service provider’s terms of service explicitly prohibit a fiduciary from accessing the account without specific authorization through their platform’s tools. Since Ms. Albright did not use the service provider’s specific tool to grant access, and her will, while mentioning digital assets, does not contain the specific language required by the provider to override their terms, the fiduciary’s access is restricted by the terms of service. Therefore, the fiduciary cannot access the digital assets solely based on the will. The correct path would have been for Ms. Albright to utilize the service provider’s designated method for granting fiduciary access.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1349, specifically concerning digital assets, outlines the rights and responsibilities of various parties. When a custodian receives a record of death for a customer, the law dictates the process for accessing and transferring digital assets. Under ORC 1349.77, a custodian must provide a user’s digital assets to the user’s personal representative or beneficiary. The key is that the custodian is generally protected from liability for disclosing assets to the person who appears to be the authorized recipient based on the provided documentation. The law does not require the custodian to determine the validity of the will or the correctness of the personal representative’s appointment beyond what is presented. The custodian’s duty is to follow the instructions in the record of death and any accompanying legal documentation, such as a court order or a will, if provided. The statute aims to balance the privacy interests of the digital asset owner with the need to allow for the orderly transfer of these assets upon death. The custodian’s role is administrative in this context, not judicial. Therefore, if presented with a valid death certificate and a court order appointing the individual as personal representative, the custodian is obligated to comply with the request, assuming the digital assets are subject to the terms of the Ohio Digital Asset Law. The protection afforded to the custodian is contingent upon good faith compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing aspects of Revised Code Chapter 1349, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. When a user of an online service dies, the service provider’s terms of service play a crucial role in determining how access to a user’s digital assets is handled. However, the law also establishes default rules that apply in the absence of specific contractual provisions or user instructions. The Ohio Revised Code Section 1349.01, concerning the rights of a user to access digital assets, and related provisions, indicate that a service provider cannot deny access to a user’s digital assets solely based on the user’s death, unless the terms of service explicitly prohibit such access or require a court order for specific types of assets. The law emphasizes the user’s control over their digital estate. Therefore, if the terms of service for “CloudVault Storage” do not contain an explicit clause prohibiting access to a deceased user’s account for their personal representative, and if the personal representative provides satisfactory proof of their authority, the service provider must grant access. The scenario posits that the terms of service are silent on this matter. In such a case, the default legal framework, which generally favors the personal representative’s right to access and manage the deceased’s property, including digital assets, would prevail. The critical factor is the absence of an explicit prohibition in the terms of service. The law aims to balance the service provider’s need to protect user privacy with the deceased user’s estate’s right to access and manage their digital property.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A critical aspect is the distinction between a user’s intent expressed in a digital asset control document and the default rules when no such document exists or is ambiguous. When a user creates a valid digital asset control document that specifically grants or denies a fiduciary access to certain digital assets, that document supersedes the general provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. The law aims to provide clarity and predictability for users and their appointed fiduciaries. If a user has a valid control document that clearly outlines access to their online accounts, including social media and cloud storage, this document dictates the fiduciary’s rights. In the absence of such a document, or if the document is unclear, Ohio law provides default rules, which often involve a tiered approach based on the type of digital asset and the fiduciary’s role. However, the presence of a clear, specific, and valid control document is paramount. Therefore, if Mr. Abernathy’s will explicitly addresses his digital assets and names Ms. Chen as his fiduciary, and this will is deemed valid under Ohio law, Ms. Chen’s access is determined by the terms of that will. The law prioritizes the user’s expressed intent.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access and manage a deceased individual’s digital assets. A custodian is defined as a person who possesses, holds, or controls a digital asset. Under Ohio law, a fiduciary can request access to a user’s digital assets from a custodian. The custodian must respond to this request within a specified timeframe, typically 60 days. The law outlines specific types of digital assets that a fiduciary may be granted access to, including content of electronic communications, digital assets stored on behalf of the user, and the user’s online accounts. The scope of access is generally limited to what is necessary for the fiduciary to administer the estate or trust. If the custodian refuses to grant access, the fiduciary may petition the court for an order compelling the custodian to provide access. The court will review the request based on the terms of service, the user’s intent, and the fiduciary’s authority. The law prioritizes the user’s terms of service and any explicit instructions provided by the user regarding digital asset access. However, the fiduciary’s legal authority to administer the estate or trust often supersedes conflicting terms of service that would otherwise prevent access for estate administration purposes. The custodian’s liability is limited when they act in good faith and in accordance with the law. The law does not mandate that a custodian create or maintain digital assets, but rather governs access to existing ones.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically Ohio Revised Code Section 1339.71, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that a person owns or has a right to possess or control, which are typically held or transmitted by a computer, computer program, internet, or other similar device. This definition encompasses various forms of digital property, including cryptocurrency, digital collectibles, online accounts, and digital representations of traditional assets. When a person dies, the distribution and management of these digital assets are governed by the terms of their estate plan, such as a will or trust, and by applicable Ohio law. If a digital asset is considered a “digital account” under Ohio law, which is an agreement between an issuer and an owner that grants the owner a right to a digital asset, then the terms of that agreement will often dictate how the account can be accessed or transferred upon the owner’s death. The Ohio law provides a framework for fiduciaries, like executors or trustees, to manage and distribute these assets, often requiring them to follow specific procedures outlined in the decedent’s estate planning documents or by court order. The intent of the law is to ensure that digital assets are treated with the same legal consideration as tangible assets, facilitating their orderly transfer and management in accordance with the owner’s wishes and the legal requirements of the state of Ohio. The core principle is that the legal framework for estate administration extends to these modern forms of property.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the provisions that align with the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. When a user creates an account with a service provider and designates a specific person to control their digital assets upon death or incapacitation, this designation is paramount. This is known as a “digital asset control intent.” The law prioritizes this explicit intent over any general terms of service or broad authorization clauses within a will or power of attorney that do not specifically reference digital assets. Therefore, if the user, Mr. Abernathy, clearly outlined his intent for Ms. Chen to manage his digital assets in his online account settings, this direct instruction supersedes a general provision in his will that does not specifically mention digital assets. The Ohio Revised Code § 1339.76 explicitly states that a user’s intent expressed in an online tool or a separate record is controlling. A general power of attorney or will, without specific mention of digital assets, would not override this direct instruction.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 through 1339.79, addresses how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. When a user creates a digital asset account, they can grant access to a fiduciary through an “online tool” provided by the custodian of the digital asset. If no such tool is used, or if the tool is insufficient, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the custodian and, if those are silent or ambiguous, by Ohio law. Ohio law prioritizes a user’s explicit instructions. In the absence of explicit instructions via an online tool or a will provision specifically addressing digital assets, a fiduciary’s access is governed by a hierarchy of control. The law generally allows a fiduciary to access digital assets if the user has not explicitly prohibited it. However, the specific method of granting access is crucial. A custodial agreement or terms of service can dictate access. If the user’s intent is clear through a valid will or other legally recognized document, that intent will be honored. The Ohio UFDAA, like its uniform counterpart, aims to provide a clear framework for fiduciaries to manage digital assets, balancing the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate. The core principle is to respect the user’s intent as expressed through legally recognized means.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1349, addresses the rights and responsibilities surrounding digital assets. When a user of a service agreement dies, the service provider is generally obligated to disclose to a designated beneficiary or the personal representative of the deceased user’s estate information about the nature and value of the digital assets held by the provider. This disclosure is crucial for estate administration and ensuring the beneficiary or representative can access or manage these assets. The law aims to provide clarity and a legal framework for dealing with digital assets, which often have significant value and personal importance, but it does not grant the service provider the authority to unilaterally decide the disposition of these assets. Instead, it mandates a process of disclosure to the appropriate parties. The law is designed to balance the privacy interests of the user with the need for transparency and access for legal representatives and beneficiaries, ensuring that digital assets are treated with the same consideration as tangible assets within the estate planning and administration process. The core principle is that the service provider acts as a custodian and must facilitate the legal transfer or management of these assets upon the user’s death, as directed by law and the user’s estate plan.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically as it relates to the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access and control a decedent’s or principal’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this law is the distinction between a “tool” and an “account.” A tool is defined as an electronic device or computer system, while an account refers to a repository of digital assets. The law generally permits a fiduciary to access an account if the user has granted specific consent through an online tool provided by the custodian of the digital asset. Without such explicit consent, the fiduciary’s access to an account is restricted, even if they have a court order or a general power of attorney, unless the terms of service specifically allow it. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through these online tools. Therefore, in this scenario, the executor’s ability to access the decedent’s cloud storage account is contingent upon whether the cloud service provider offers an online tool for granting fiduciary access and if the decedent utilized it. The Ohio Revised Code § 1339.73 outlines the methods for granting access, emphasizing consent via an online tool. If no such tool was used, or if the decedent did not grant access through it, the executor would not have the right to access the account, even with a will naming them as executor. The law aims to balance the need for fiduciaries to manage digital assets with the privacy rights of the account holder.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, particularly under Chapter 1349 of the Ohio Revised Code, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. When a user of an online service dies, the service provider’s terms of service often dictate how the user’s digital assets are handled. Ohio law, however, establishes a framework that generally prioritizes the user’s intent and legal rights, even if these conflict with certain terms of service that might restrict access by the user’s representative. Specifically, the law aims to provide a clear process for the legal representative of a deceased user’s estate to access or control digital assets. This involves the representative providing proof of their authority and the user’s death. The law is designed to balance the privacy interests of users with the need for estate administration. It acknowledges that digital assets are valuable and must be accounted for within an estate. The core principle is that a service provider cannot unreasonably restrict a legal representative’s access to digital assets that are part of a deceased user’s estate, provided proper documentation is furnished. Therefore, a service provider’s terms of service cannot override the statutory rights granted to a legal representative under Ohio law to access or control these assets, as long as the representative adheres to the procedural requirements outlined in the statute, such as providing a court order or other satisfactory proof of authority. The law does not grant the service provider the discretion to unilaterally decide if the digital asset should be transferred or deleted based on their own policy when a valid legal representative makes a request.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) as codified in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A “digital asset” is broadly defined to include electronic records in which a user has a right or interest, excluding online accounts. A “fiduciary” includes an executor, administrator, trustee, or agent. The law outlines a hierarchy of control. First, a user can grant access through a “tool” like a digital asset service provider’s terms of service, a will provision, or a power of attorney specifically authorizing digital asset access. If no such tool exists, the fiduciary’s authority is determined by the type of digital asset and the user’s intent. For online accounts, the terms of service of the service provider generally govern access. For other digital assets, a fiduciary can access them if they are part of the user’s estate or trust and the fiduciary has the legal authority to manage the estate or trust. However, the law also includes limitations. Service providers are not obligated to disclose content of communications unless specifically authorized by the user or a court order. The concept of “digital legacy” planning is crucial, encouraging users to proactively designate who should manage their digital assets. In this scenario, the executor is the fiduciary. The will provision is a valid “tool” under Ohio law for granting access. Therefore, the executor, as a fiduciary, can access the digital assets described in the will, provided the will specifically grants this authority for those types of assets and the terms of service of the digital asset providers do not contradict this grant. The key is the existence of a valid tool (the will) and the fiduciary’s role.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA) as adopted in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.80, addresses how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. When a user has not provided specific instructions in a “digital asset control document” or a “terms of service” agreement that grants access, the law outlines a hierarchy of authority. For a fiduciary appointed by a court, such as an executor or administrator of an estate, access is generally granted to digital assets that are not “content” of electronic communications, unless the user has explicitly prohibited such access. However, the law distinguishes between content of electronic communications and other digital assets like digital accounts or digital property. Access to the content of electronic communications is more restricted and typically requires a court order. In this scenario, the fiduciary is seeking access to the deceased’s cryptocurrency wallet, which holds digital assets. While the cryptocurrency itself and its associated transaction history might be considered accessible, the private keys or specific communications related to the wallet’s creation or funding could fall under content of electronic communications. Ohio law, mirroring the UFDAA, prioritizes the user’s intent and any explicit instructions. Without a clear digital asset control document or terms of service that permit access to all digital assets, including communication content, a fiduciary must navigate these distinctions. The question asks about the fiduciary’s ability to access the *contents* of the digital asset account, which implies more than just the balance or transaction records. Given the absence of a specific control document and the nature of cryptocurrency wallets often involving communication logs or private key management, the most accurate interpretation under Ohio law is that access to the content of electronic communications within the digital asset account would require a court order. This aligns with the protective measures for private communications embedded in digital asset laws.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1339, governs the rights and responsibilities of individuals and fiduciaries concerning digital assets. When a digital asset is held by a financial institution, the institution’s terms of service and applicable federal laws, such as the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN Act), play a crucial role in determining access and control. ORC 1339.71(A)(2) defines a “digital asset” broadly, encompassing electronic records that an account holder has a right to access. ORC 1339.74 addresses the custodian’s duty to comply with a user’s request to disclose or transfer a digital asset. However, the custodian must also adhere to its own terms of service and federal law. In this scenario, the financial institution’s terms of service explicitly prohibit the transfer of digital assets held in a custodial account to a third party, even with a valid court order or a user’s instruction, unless the terms of service are amended or waived by the institution. This institutional policy, when not superseded by a specific statutory provision that mandates otherwise or a court order with explicit authority to override such terms, takes precedence in governing the custodian’s actions. Therefore, the custodian’s refusal is based on its contractual obligations and internal policies, which are not directly overridden by the general provisions of the Ohio Digital Assets Law in this specific instance concerning the transfer of assets held under such restrictive terms.

The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1349, concerning consumer protection, and specifically sections related to digital property and its disposition upon death, are relevant here. When a person dies, their digital assets, like online accounts and digital content, need to be managed. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Ohio, governs how a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can access a deceased person’s digital assets. A key aspect of UFADAA is the distinction between content that is stored on a device owned by the deceased and content that is stored by a third-party custodian. For content stored by a custodian (like cloud storage or social media platforms), the custodian’s terms of service and Ohio law dictate access. Generally, fiduciaries can access digital assets unless the terms of service prohibit it or the user has explicitly opted out of fiduciary access. However, the law also emphasizes the privacy of the deceased and others. In this scenario, the executor is seeking access to the deceased’s cloud-based photo storage service. The ORC, incorporating UFADAA principles, allows a fiduciary to access digital assets, including cloud storage, if the terms of service permit or if the user has not opted out. The executor has a court order appointing them, establishing their fiduciary status. The critical element is the custodian’s terms of service. If the terms of service of the cloud photo storage provider allow for executor access, or if they do not explicitly prohibit it and the deceased did not opt out, the executor can gain access. The executor’s ability to access the digital assets is contingent on the terms of service of the online platform and the specific provisions of Ohio’s digital asset law, which generally favors granting access to fiduciaries unless there are explicit restrictions or privacy concerns that override it. The law aims to balance the deceased’s intent, the fiduciary’s duty, and the service provider’s policies.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically referencing Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Chapter 1339.71, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that an individual has a right or interest in. This definition encompasses various forms of digital property, including cryptocurrency, digital collectibles, and online accounts. When considering the transfer of these assets upon an individual’s death, the law distinguishes between assets that are “custodial” and those that are “non-custodial.” Custodial digital assets are those held by a third-party service provider, such as a cryptocurrency exchange or a cloud storage provider. Non-custodial assets are those directly controlled by the user, often through private keys held by the user. ORC Chapter 1339.71(A)(2) outlines the process for transferring digital assets. For custodial assets, the terms of service of the service provider and the terms of the user’s account agreement are paramount. The law generally permits a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, to access and control these assets if the terms of service allow for it and the fiduciary provides appropriate documentation. However, the law does not grant automatic access to non-custodial assets through a will or trust alone, as the control mechanism (e.g., private keys) is typically external to these legal documents. The law requires specific instructions or authorization from the user for the fiduciary to access non-custodial assets. Therefore, a digital asset held in a non-custodial wallet, where the user exclusively controls the private keys, would not be directly transferable through a standard testamentary disposition without additional, specific user authorization that grants the executor access to those keys or the wallet itself. The fiduciary’s ability to access and manage digital assets is contingent upon the nature of the asset’s custody and the explicit terms governing its access.

In Ohio, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as codified in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1339.71 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a decedent’s digital assets. A key aspect of this law is the distinction between a fiduciary’s ability to access content and their ability to control or manage digital assets. While a fiduciary can typically access digital assets if the user’s intent is clear or if the terms of service allow it, controlling or managing these assets often requires explicit authorization. For instance, a fiduciary might be able to read emails but not necessarily delete them or change account settings without specific instructions or legal authority. The law balances the decedent’s privacy with the fiduciary’s duty to administer the estate. It emphasizes that a fiduciary cannot be granted greater authority over digital assets than the user possessed. Furthermore, the law distinguishes between the fiduciary’s right to access and the service provider’s obligations, outlining when a service provider may refuse access. The core principle is that the user’s wishes, as expressed in an electronic or written record, or through the service provider’s terms of service, dictate the extent of the fiduciary’s access and control. The Ohio UFADAA aims to provide a clear framework for a complex and evolving area of estate administration.

The Ohio Digital Assets Law, specifically drawing from principles often reflected in state statutes governing digital assets and trusts, addresses how digital assets are handled upon an owner’s death or incapacity. When a person creates a trust and designates a successor trustee, and that trust instrument clearly outlines the disposition of digital assets, the successor trustee generally has the authority to manage those assets according to the trust’s terms. This is predicated on the trust being a valid legal instrument and the digital assets being properly identified and conveyed to the trust. Ohio Revised Code Section 1339.71 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records in which a user has a right or interest. Section 1339.73 grants a fiduciary, such as a trustee, the authority to access and control digital assets if the user has granted such authority in a record. Therefore, if Mr. Abernathy’s trust document explicitly includes his cryptocurrency holdings and online accounts as assets to be managed by the successor trustee, and he has provided the necessary consent or authorization as contemplated by law, the successor trustee can indeed manage these assets. The key is the clear intent expressed in the trust instrument and compliance with the legal framework for digital asset fiduciaries. The question hinges on the interplay between trust law and digital asset law, where the trust instrument serves as the primary directive, provided it aligns with statutory permissions for fiduciary access.