The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFDAA), codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, governs how fiduciaries can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. A key aspect of this law is the distinction between a “custodian” and a “digital asset.” A custodian is defined as a person who holds, possesses, or controls a digital asset. A digital asset, under the NDUFDAA, encompasses electronic communications, digital data, and online accounts. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in a “digital asset control document,” which can be a will, trust, power of attorney, or a separate directive specifically for digital assets. If no such document exists, or if it does not cover specific digital assets, the NDUFDAA provides a default hierarchy for access. For online accounts, the fiduciary’s right to access is generally limited to what the account holder could access. However, the law also specifies that certain digital assets, like electronic communications, are treated differently. Specifically, NDUFDAA § 30.1-33-07 outlines the terms of service of a custodian. This section clarifies that if a custodian’s terms of service conflict with the NDUFDAA, the terms of service control regarding the custodian’s obligations. This means that even if the NDUFDAA grants a fiduciary access, the custodian’s own user agreement can restrict that access. Therefore, when assessing a fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets, the terms of service of the custodian holding those assets are paramount, especially when they impose limitations that differ from the general provisions of the NDUFDAA. The scenario presented involves a digital asset held by a custodian whose terms of service expressly prohibit access to digital communications by a fiduciary, even with a valid power of attorney. In such a case, the NDUFDAA’s provision regarding conflicting terms of service dictates that the custodian’s terms will prevail.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAAA), codified in Chapter 47-20.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for fiduciaries to access and control a user’s digital assets. When a user creates a digital asset, they may grant specific rights to a fiduciary, such as an executor or agent, through an online tool provided by the custodian. If the user has not granted access through such a tool, or if the tool is unavailable, the NDUFAAA provides a hierarchy of control. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the corresponding rights a fiduciary can exercise. For digital assets that are digital personal property, like online accounts containing personal communications or files, a conservator or agent under a durable power of attorney can typically access them if the user has not provided instructions. However, the Act also addresses digital assets that are digital services, which are often subject to terms of service agreements. In such cases, the fiduciary’s rights are often limited by the terms of service unless the user has specifically authorized broader access. North Dakota law, similar to the Uniform Act, prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their terms of service or through specific digital tools. If a user explicitly grants access to a digital asset custodian’s online tool to their executor, this directive supersedes the general hierarchy of control for digital personal property. Therefore, an executor, acting on behalf of a deceased user, can access digital assets if the user previously utilized a custodian’s tool to grant such access, even if other forms of estate planning documents might not explicitly mention digital assets.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-10.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Section 47-10.1-07 of the NDUFDAA outlines the conditions under which a fiduciary can be granted access. Specifically, if a user has not provided instructions regarding their digital assets and has not granted access through an online tool provided by a digital asset custodian, the fiduciary must obtain a court order. This court order is required to compel disclosure of digital assets, unless the user’s terms of service with the custodian explicitly permit access without such an order, which is rare. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through their account agreements and any explicit instructions. Without such instructions or a court order, the custodian is generally prohibited from disclosing the content of the user’s digital assets to the fiduciary. Therefore, in the absence of a user’s explicit instructions or a court order, a fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets is severely restricted by the custodian’s terms of service and the NDUFDAA’s provisions for lawful access.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAAA), as codified in Chapter 47-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for fiduciaries to access a user’s digital assets. A fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access digital assets if the user has granted them specific authority in a digital asset power of attorney, a will, or a trust instrument. If no such explicit grant exists, the NDUFAAA provides a default framework. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent and the terms of any applicable terms of service agreements. Specifically, Section 47-30.1-117 of the North Dakota Century Code addresses the fiduciary’s right to access digital assets. It establishes a hierarchy of control, where a user’s explicit grant of authority in a record is paramount. In the absence of such a grant, the Act allows a fiduciary to access certain categories of digital assets if doing so is necessary to perform their duties, subject to limitations imposed by the digital asset service provider’s terms of service. The law distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the level of access a fiduciary may obtain. For instance, content that is not readily accessible by the public, such as private communications, requires a specific court order or a clear grant of authority in a record. The core principle is to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage the user’s affairs. Therefore, a fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets is contingent upon either an explicit grant of authority or, in its absence, adherence to the statutory framework that balances privacy and the fiduciary’s duties, always considering the terms of service of the digital asset provider. The question tests the understanding of when a fiduciary can access digital assets under North Dakota law, specifically when there is no explicit grant of authority.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-19.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Section 47-19.1-11 specifically addresses the duties and liabilities of a digital assets fiduciary. This section clarifies that a fiduciary who acts in good faith and with ordinary care in performing their duties under the act is not liable for any act or omission. This protection extends to actions taken in accordance with the user’s terms of service or any applicable law. The act distinguishes between a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset and their authority to control or manage it. Access generally means the ability to view, download, or otherwise obtain the content of a digital asset. Control, on the other hand, implies the ability to modify, delete, or transfer ownership of that asset. The ND UFDAA prioritizes the user’s intent, as expressed in their digital estate plan or through a record of digital assets, when determining a fiduciary’s authority. If the user has not provided explicit instructions, the act provides a default hierarchy of authority. The protection afforded to a fiduciary under 47-19.1-11 is contingent upon their adherence to these principles and their acting within the scope of their authority as granted by the user or the law.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAADA), codified in Chapter 47-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Section 47-26-05 outlines the priority of instructions. If a user has provided an explicit instruction regarding digital assets in an account or service agreement, that instruction controls over a general authorization in a will or a durable power of attorney, unless the user has specifically revoked the service agreement instruction in a later authenticated record. In this scenario, the user’s explicit instruction within the terms of service for their cloud storage provider, which prohibited any third-party access to their stored files, directly addresses the disposition of those specific digital assets. This specific instruction, if it is an authenticated record as defined by the Act, takes precedence over the broader authority granted in the durable power of attorney. Therefore, the fiduciary’s authority to access the cloud storage files is limited by the user’s prior, specific instruction within the service agreement. The Act prioritizes specific, authenticated instructions over general fiduciary authorizations when it comes to digital assets.

North Dakota’s Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), codified in Chapter 30.1-33 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how a fiduciary can access a person’s digital assets. Specifically, the Act distinguishes between digital assets that are the user’s own property and those that are merely held by the user in trust for others. For digital assets that are solely the user’s own property, a fiduciary generally needs explicit consent from the user, either through a digital asset control document or by the user having granted specific permissions within the service provider’s terms of service. However, for digital assets that are held by the user in a custodial or fiduciary capacity, such as a digital wallet containing cryptocurrency for the benefit of a third party, the fiduciary’s access is governed by the terms of the trust or custodial agreement and the applicable fiduciary duties. North Dakota law emphasizes the importance of the user’s intent and the terms of service agreements with digital asset custodians. When a user designates a successor in their account settings for a platform like a cloud storage service or a cryptocurrency exchange, this is considered a form of explicit consent under the UFDAA, provided the terms of service permit such designation for the specific type of digital asset. The Act aims to balance the user’s privacy and control with the fiduciary’s need to manage assets upon incapacity or death. The critical distinction lies in whether the digital asset is owned outright by the user or held in a representative capacity. If it’s the latter, the fiduciary’s authority stems from the underlying trust or custodial arrangement, not solely from a general grant of access. The North Dakota UFDAA allows for a fiduciary to access digital assets if the user has granted specific authority in a will, trust, or a separate digital asset power of attorney. The Act also recognizes that terms of service can create contractual rights regarding digital asset access. Without explicit consent, a fiduciary’s access to digital assets that are the user’s sole property is restricted.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAADA), codified in Chapter 47-24.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between the user’s intent as expressed in a “digital asset control document” and the default rules if no such document exists. The act prioritizes a user’s explicit instructions. If a user has created a digital asset control document that specifically grants access to their digital assets to a designated person, that document controls. In the absence of such a document, the NDUFAADA provides default rules. For a trustee, as a fiduciary, access to digital assets is generally granted if the trust document grants the trustee authority over the digital assets or if the user has not otherwise specified access in a digital asset control document. However, the act also allows for custodians to refuse access if it would violate their terms of service or applicable law, unless the user has explicitly granted access in a control document. In this scenario, the trust document explicitly grants the trustee the power to manage all of Mr. Abernathy’s property, which would encompass his digital assets. Since there is no separate digital asset control document that contradicts this, the trustee’s authority, as granted by the trust, prevails. Therefore, the trustee can access Mr. Abernathy’s digital assets, subject to the custodian’s terms of service unless the trust document specifically overrides those terms. The question asks about the trustee’s ability to access the assets, and the trust document’s broad grant of authority is the primary factor here.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-32.1 governs the rights and responsibilities of a digital asset custodian. Specifically, Section 30.1-32.1-17 addresses the custodian’s duty to provide a digital asset to a beneficiary. If a user’s terms of service with the custodian do not specify a procedure for handling digital assets upon the user’s death, or if the terms are silent on the matter, the custodian must follow the procedures outlined in the North Dakota law. This law generally requires the custodian to provide a digital asset to the beneficiary named in the user’s online tool or, if no such tool exists, to the personal representative of the user’s estate, provided the custodian receives a valid court order and proof of the user’s death. The custodian is not obligated to provide access to the digital asset if the terms of service explicitly prohibit it or if the custodian has a reasonable belief that providing access would violate the law or a valid court order. Therefore, in the absence of a specific online tool or a conflicting provision in the terms of service, the custodian’s obligation is to comply with the statutory framework for estate distribution.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-10.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets after their death or incapacitation. Under NDUFDAA, a fiduciary can generally access digital assets if they are granted specific authority in a record. A “record” is defined as information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. This includes a will, trust, power of attorney, or a specific digital asset authorization. In the scenario provided, the deceased, Ms. Anya Sharma, executed a will that specifically addressed her digital assets. This will, being a legally recognized record, grants her executor, Mr. Kai Peterson, the authority to access her digital assets as provided by the NDUFDAA. The law prioritizes explicit instructions from the user, and a will is a primary method of providing such instructions. Therefore, Mr. Peterson’s authority stems directly from Ms. Sharma’s will, which is a valid record under North Dakota law, granting him the necessary access rights to manage her digital estate. The absence of a separate digital asset custodian agreement or a specific digital asset authorization does not preclude access if the will provides clear direction, as it does in this instance.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAAA), codified in Chapter 47-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. Section 47-30.1-12 of the NDUFAAA addresses the specific situation where a user has not provided explicit instructions regarding their digital assets in a record. In such cases, the Act establishes a hierarchy of access. The law prioritizes a court order that specifically grants the fiduciary access to the digital assets. If no such court order exists, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the online custodian. However, the NDUFAAA also provides a default framework for access when neither explicit instructions nor a court order is present. This framework grants the fiduciary access to digital assets that the user had the right to access and that the fiduciary has the duty to manage or distribute. This is contingent upon the fiduciary’s ability to demonstrate their fiduciary status and the necessity of accessing the assets for their duties. The law emphasizes that the fiduciary’s access is limited to what is necessary to perform their fiduciary duties, and they are subject to the terms of service of the online custodian unless a court order supersedes them. The core principle is to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate or trust effectively. The absence of a specific directive from the user means the custodian’s terms of service become a significant factor, but the NDUFAAA provides a statutory fallback that allows fiduciaries to act when necessary, provided they can prove their authority and the need.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 30.1-32.1, governs the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. This chapter outlines the rights of a personal representative to access and control a deceased user’s digital assets. A crucial aspect is the distinction between the “content” of a digital asset and the “account” itself. While a personal representative generally has the authority to access and manage digital accounts, the disclosure of specific digital content, such as emails or stored files, may be subject to additional considerations and consent requirements, unless explicitly provided for in the user’s terms of service or a specific digital asset will. The law aims to balance the need for efficient estate administration with the privacy interests inherent in digital communications and stored information. When a user’s terms of service do not provide explicit consent for disclosure of content, and no specific digital asset will addresses it, the personal representative’s ability to access that content is restricted. This is to prevent unauthorized access to private communications or data that the deceased user may have intended to remain confidential. Therefore, in the absence of such explicit consent or provision, the personal representative can manage the account but cannot unilaterally access the private content within it.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-32-07 addresses the rights of a conservator to manage digital assets. Specifically, this statute outlines that a conservator has the authority to access, control, and manage a principal’s digital assets. This includes the ability to exercise the principal’s rights in online accounts, digital services, and other digital property. The law aims to provide a framework for managing digital assets when an individual is incapacitated or deceased, ensuring continuity and proper handling of these often complex assets. The conservator’s powers are generally broad, allowing them to act as if they were the principal, within the bounds of the law and any specific limitations in the digital asset agreement. This comprehensive authority is crucial for effective estate planning and management in the digital age. The statute does not limit the conservator’s access to only certain types of digital assets, but rather grants broad authority over all digital assets of the principal.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, governs how fiduciaries can access a decedent’s or principal’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 30.1-33-10 outlines the requirements for a fiduciary to access a digital asset. This section states that a fiduciary may request access to a digital asset by providing the user’s custodian with a copy of the user’s death certificate or a court order, along with a certified copy of the fiduciary’s certification of appointment or letters of authority. The custodian then has 60 days to respond to the request. If the custodian has a reasonable basis to believe the fiduciary is not authorized or that access would violate a term of service agreement, they may deny the request. However, the Act also provides a mechanism for the fiduciary to seek court intervention if the request is denied. The key is that the fiduciary must follow the statutory procedure, which involves providing specific documentation to the custodian. A simple assertion of fiduciary status without the required documentation, or an attempt to access assets through means not permitted by the Act or the custodian’s terms of service, would not be a valid method under North Dakota law. Therefore, the fiduciary must adhere to the procedures laid out in ND UFDAA, including presenting the death certificate or court order and proof of fiduciary appointment.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAADA), codified in Chapter 47-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a decedent’s or principal’s digital assets. Section 47-30.1-19 outlines the procedure for a fiduciary to request access to digital assets. Specifically, it requires the fiduciary to provide a copy of the user’s written consent or a court order, along with proof of the fiduciary’s appointment. The custodian then has 60 days to respond to the request. If the custodian refuses, the fiduciary may petition the court for an order directing compliance. In this scenario, the court order serves as the legal authorization for the fiduciary, Mr. Abernathy, to access the digital assets of the late Ms. Gable. The NDUFAADA distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the level of access granted, but the core mechanism for a fiduciary to obtain access, absent a specific user instruction, is through a court order or explicit consent. The act emphasizes the importance of respecting the user’s intent and privacy while enabling lawful administration of their digital estate. The law aims to balance the need for fiduciaries to manage digital assets with the privacy interests of the user and the responsibilities of custodians.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAADA), codified in Chapter 47-11.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between an “online tool” and other forms of granting access. An online tool, as defined by the Act, is a service provided by a custodian that allows a user to designate specific persons to whom their digital assets or content of their digital communications may be released, and to control the nature and scope of that release. When a user has used an online tool to grant access, that grant of access generally overrides any conflicting provisions in a will, trust, or other record, unless the custodian has not implemented the online tool in a manner consistent with the user’s instructions or the user has revoked the online tool designation. In this scenario, Mr. Henderson explicitly used the online tool provided by his email service to grant his daughter, Ms. Henderson, access to his email account. This direct action through the custodian’s designated mechanism for granting access takes precedence over the general authorization in his will. The will’s provision is a “will,” which is a record that can grant access, but the NDUFAADA specifically states that a grant of access through an online tool is effective even if the user’s will or other record grants a different or conflicting authority. Therefore, Ms. Henderson’s access is governed by the online tool designation.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. Section 47-26-04 outlines the types of authenticated instructions that grant a fiduciary access. Specifically, it details that a fiduciary can be granted access through a “legal instrument,” which includes a will, a trust, or a power of attorney. The act prioritizes these specific legal instruments over any terms of service agreements of online service providers. Therefore, if a principal, through a valid power of attorney executed in North Dakota, explicitly grants their agent the authority to access their digital assets, that agent can legally do so, notwithstanding contrary provisions in the online service provider’s terms of service, unless the service provider has a specific policy against it that is permitted by the act. The act aims to provide fiduciaries with the necessary tools to manage digital assets, recognizing their increasing importance in estate planning and asset management. It balances the user’s control over their digital life with the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate or manage affairs effectively. The critical element is the presence of a valid, authenticated instruction, such as a power of attorney, that specifically addresses digital asset access.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-25.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access a decedent’s or incapacitated person’s digital assets. The Act distinguishes between two primary methods of granting access: a “user’s digital estate plan” and the “terms of service” of the online service provider. A user’s digital estate plan, as defined by the Act, includes a will, trust, power of attorney, or a specific digital asset designation made by the user. These documents, when properly executed and in compliance with North Dakota law, grant a fiduciary the authority to manage digital assets. However, the Act also recognizes that online service providers have their own terms of service that govern access to user accounts and digital assets. The ND UFDAA prioritizes the user’s digital estate plan over the provider’s terms of service, unless the terms of service explicitly prohibit access or provide a specific alternative method for fiduciary access that is not inconsistent with the Act. In this scenario, while Ms. Albright’s will is a valid digital estate plan, the cloud storage provider’s terms of service explicitly state that account access is terminated upon the user’s death and no access is granted to any third party, including fiduciaries, regardless of any other legal document. This provision in the terms of service, as permitted by the ND UFDAA, overrides the general provisions of the will regarding access to those specific digital assets stored on that platform. Therefore, the personal representative, Mr. Henderson, would not be able to access the digital photos.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAA), codified in Chapter 47-25.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between the content of digital assets and the digital assets themselves, as well as the specific types of access granted. When a user has not provided explicit instructions regarding their digital assets, the Act outlines a default hierarchy of access. In the absence of a will, trust, or power of attorney that specifically addresses digital assets, or a court order, the Act permits a fiduciary to access certain digital assets. Specifically, NDCC § 47-25.2-12 dictates that if a user has not granted access, a fiduciary may be granted access to the content of the user’s digital assets, subject to specific limitations. This access is not absolute and is contingent upon the fiduciary’s duty to manage the digital assets in accordance with the user’s expressed intent or, if no intent is expressed, in a manner that preserves the user’s estate. The Act prioritizes the user’s privacy and the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Therefore, even with fiduciary authority, access is not automatic and is subject to the specific provisions of the Act and any applicable terms of service agreements. The question tests the understanding of the default access provisions for fiduciaries when a user has not provided explicit instructions, focusing on the scope of access granted under North Dakota law.

North Dakota’s digital asset laws, particularly as influenced by the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), address how a personal representative can access a deceased person’s digital assets. Under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, a fiduciary, including a personal representative, can generally access a digital asset of the decedent if the decedent’s online tool or an electronic agreement explicitly grants such access. If no such tool or agreement exists, the personal representative can petition the court for access. The law distinguishes between content of communications and other digital assets. For content of communications, access is more restricted and typically requires explicit consent from the sender and recipient, or a court order specifically authorizing access to that content. However, for digital assets that are not content of communications, such as digital accounts or digital property, the personal representative’s ability to access them is broader if the terms of service of the digital asset custodian do not prohibit it and the personal representative has a court order or the decedent’s consent. The critical element is the absence of a specific prohibition by the custodian and the proper legal authorization for the personal representative.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAA), codified in Chapter 47-14.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives, can access and control a decedent’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 47-14.1-12 addresses the authority of a fiduciary to access a digital asset of the decedent. This section states that a fiduciary may request access to the digital assets of the decedent. The custodian of the digital asset must provide access to the fiduciary unless the custodian has a specific legal right to refuse access, such as a contractual provision that prohibits disclosure of content of electronic communications to anyone other than the user. However, the law generally prioritizes the fiduciary’s right to manage the estate, which often includes accessing digital assets necessary for estate administration, unless explicitly overridden by a user’s terms of service that are legally enforceable and do not violate public policy or other statutes. The scenario involves a digital asset custodian refusing access based on their terms of service, which prohibit disclosure of content of electronic communications. Under NDCC § 47-14.1-12(b)(2), a custodian may refuse access if the user’s terms of service prohibit disclosure of the content of electronic communications to the fiduciary. This provision directly applies to the situation described, allowing the custodian to deny access to the content of the decedent’s private communications, even to the personal representative. Therefore, the custodian’s refusal is legally permissible under North Dakota law.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAA), as codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a decedent’s or principal’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this law is the distinction between a user’s intent expressed in an online tool provided by a digital asset custodian and the intent expressed in a separate, legally recognized document like a will or trust. NDCC § 30.1-33-04(b) specifies that if a digital asset custodian provides an online tool to direct the disposition of digital assets upon death or incapacitation, and the user has used that tool, the custodian’s tool governs the disposition of those specific digital assets. This provision prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions within the custodian’s framework for those particular assets. However, this does not override a user’s general intent expressed in a will or trust regarding other assets or the overall estate plan, unless the will or trust specifically addresses the digital assets in a manner consistent with or superseding the online tool’s instructions. The law aims to provide clarity and respect the user’s expressed wishes, whether through a custodian’s platform or traditional estate planning documents, while acknowledging the unique nature of digital assets and the specific mechanisms custodians may offer. In this scenario, the user’s explicit use of the social media platform’s tool for account disposition takes precedence for that specific digital asset, irrespective of a broader, conflicting statement in their will concerning general digital property.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAAA), codified in Chapter 47-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A key distinction within the act is between the types of digital assets and the methods of granting access. For a fiduciary to access a digital asset that is not a record of a specific electronic communication (like emails or text messages), the user must grant access through a “ToS” (Terms of Service) provision, an online account management tool, or a separate document. This document, often referred to as a digital asset power of attorney or a specific digital asset instruction, must clearly state the user’s intent to grant access to their digital assets. The act prioritizes explicit consent. In the absence of a specific digital asset instruction or a clear provision in the Terms of Service that grants the fiduciary access, a fiduciary cannot compel access to digital assets that are not electronic communications. This is to protect user privacy and control over their online presence and data. Therefore, if Ms. Gable’s will simply names Mr. Henderson as executor and does not contain a specific digital asset instruction or reference a separate document granting access, and the Terms of Service for her cloud storage do not permit such access by an executor, Mr. Henderson would not have the legal authority under North Dakota law to access her cloud storage account.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, governs how fiduciaries can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 30.1-33-11 outlines the limitations on a fiduciary’s access. This section states that a fiduciary may not access the content of any digital communication sent or received by the user, such as emails, instant messages, or text messages, unless the user has expressly consented to such access in the user’s digital asset control document or a separate record. The law prioritizes the user’s intent and privacy regarding their digital communications. Therefore, without explicit consent for content access to communications, a fiduciary’s authority under the ND UFDAA does not extend to reading the contents of emails or text messages. The fiduciary can, however, manage other digital assets like online accounts or digital property as permitted by the control document or the law.

North Dakota’s Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), codified in Chapter 30.1-32.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how a fiduciary can access a principal’s digital assets. Section 30.1-32.1-09 specifically addresses the terms of service of a digital asset custodian. This section states that a fiduciary may not access a digital asset if the custodian has a term of service that specifically prohibits access by the fiduciary. This prohibition is a critical exception to the general grant of authority to fiduciaries. Therefore, if a digital asset custodian’s terms of service explicitly forbid a fiduciary from accessing a digital asset, that provision will override the fiduciary’s authority under the UFDAA, even if the principal had granted broad authority to the fiduciary. This principle ensures that the terms of service agreed upon by the user and the custodian are respected, provided they do not violate other laws. The law aims to balance the principal’s intent with the operational realities and agreements with digital asset custodians.

In North Dakota, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), as codified in Chapter 47-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, NDCC § 47-26-06 outlines the procedures for a fiduciary to gain access. This section distinguishes between controlling and non-controlling fiduciaries. A controlling fiduciary, such as an agent under a durable power of attorney or a trustee, generally has broader access rights than a non-controlling fiduciary like an executor. For a non-controlling fiduciary, like an executor of an estate, access is typically granted through a court order or by the user’s explicit consent in a digital asset will or other record. NDCC § 47-26-06(c) states that if a user has not provided explicit consent through a digital asset will or other record, a fiduciary may request access from the custodian. The custodian can then grant access if the fiduciary provides a court order or other record sufficient to establish the fiduciary’s authority. The statute also emphasizes that a custodian may deny access if it believes the access would violate the law or a valid court order. Therefore, an executor seeking access to a deceased individual’s online banking information, which is a digital asset, would need to present a court order, such as letters testamentary, to the online banking institution (the custodian) to gain access under North Dakota law, assuming no specific digital asset instructions were provided by the deceased. The key is the legal authority demonstrated by the fiduciary.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 30.1-32.1, governs the rights and responsibilities of custodians of digital assets. When a person dies, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in North Dakota, dictates how a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can access a decedent’s digital assets. Section 30.1-32.1-09 outlines the procedure for a fiduciary to obtain access. It states that a fiduciary may request access to a digital asset of the decedent by providing the custodian with a authenticated copy of the user’s death certificate and a copy of the fiduciary’s grant of authority. The custodian must then grant access within 60 days of receiving the authenticated documentation, unless the custodian has a reasonable basis to believe the user has granted access to another person or that granting access would breach the custodian’s duty to the user. This 60-day period is a statutory timeframe for compliance. Therefore, if the executor provides the required documentation on March 1st, the custodian must respond by May 1st.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAAA), codified in Chapter 47-29 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for fiduciaries to access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. A fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access digital assets if the user has granted access through a “Tool” provided by the digital asset custodian or by specifically authorizing the fiduciary in the user’s account terms of service. If no such tool or authorization exists, a fiduciary can access digital assets by providing the custodian with a court order that directs the custodian to grant access. This court order must be specific and demonstrate the fiduciary’s legal authority. Without these explicit provisions, the custodian is not obligated to grant access. In this scenario, since Ms. Anya Petrova did not grant specific access via a tool or account terms, her executor must obtain a court order to access her digital assets. The question asks for the legal basis for the executor to gain access in North Dakota. The NDUFAAA provides the framework for this access.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NDUFAA), codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 30.1-33, addresses how fiduciaries can access a decedent’s digital assets. A custodian’s refusal to grant access to a fiduciary, when presented with a valid court order or a valid record of the user’s intent, is a breach of their obligation under the Act. Specifically, Section 30.1-33-12 of the NDCC outlines the duties of a custodian. If a custodian receives a valid request from a fiduciary and fails to comply within a reasonable timeframe, or if they deny access without a valid legal basis, they may be liable. The Act differentiates between direct access and a fiduciary’s right to access. While a user can grant direct access to a fiduciary through a digital asset control document, the Act also provides default rules for when such a document is absent. In this scenario, the fiduciary has a court order, which is a primary means of establishing their right to access under the Act. A custodian’s internal policy that contradicts the statutory rights granted to a fiduciary with a court order does not supersede the law. Therefore, the custodian’s refusal, despite a valid court order, constitutes a violation of the NDCC Chapter 30.1-33, specifically the provisions regarding a custodian’s obligations to a fiduciary.

The North Dakota Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (ND UFDAA), codified in Chapter 47-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 47-12-07 addresses the disclosure of digital assets by a custodian. This section outlines that a custodian shall not disclose digital assets to a fiduciary unless the fiduciary has provided the custodian with a valid court order or a valid power of attorney that specifically grants the fiduciary authority over the user’s digital assets. The act differentiates between a “content” fiduciary, who can access the content of digital communications, and a “digital asset” fiduciary, who can manage all digital assets. In this scenario, the power of attorney explicitly grants the fiduciary the authority to manage “all digital assets,” which encompasses the digital photographs stored on the cloud service. Therefore, the fiduciary is entitled to access these photographs. The core principle is that the scope of authority granted in the legal instrument (the power of attorney) dictates the fiduciary’s access rights, subject to the custodian’s obligations under the ND UFDAA. The act aims to balance the user’s privacy with the need for fiduciaries to manage digital estates effectively. A court order would also be a valid basis for access, but the power of attorney suffices in this case. The custodian’s internal terms of service, while potentially relevant to account usage, cannot override the statutory rights granted by the ND UFDAA concerning fiduciary access to digital assets as defined and permitted by the act.