The Nebraska Uniform Digital Assets Law (NUDALA), codified in Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 16, provides a framework for managing digital assets upon a person’s death. A critical aspect of this law is the distinction between a digital asset that is primarily personal in nature and one that is primarily business or commercial in nature. For digital assets that are primarily personal, such as personal emails, digital photos, or social media accounts, the law grants the personal representative of an estate the authority to access and control these assets, provided the user has not otherwise directed. This access is typically granted through the terms of service of the online platform, which may contain provisions regarding deceased users. However, the NUDALA emphasizes that the user’s intent and any explicit instructions in their will or a separate digital asset directive are paramount. For digital assets that are primarily business or commercial, such as business emails, company financial records stored digitally, or proprietary software licenses, the law generally allows the personal representative to access these assets without needing explicit consent from the service provider, assuming the deceased was the owner or had the right to control them. This is because the business nature implies a commercial interest that is part of the estate’s assets, subject to the ordinary probate process. The question hinges on identifying which category of digital asset is governed by specific provisions that prioritize the user’s intent and the terms of service for access by a personal representative. Personal digital assets, due to their private nature and the terms of service agreements typically governing them, require a more nuanced approach where the user’s intent and platform terms are key. Business digital assets, on the other hand, are generally treated more like traditional business property within the estate. Therefore, the scenario involving personal digital assets is the one where the user’s intent and the service provider’s terms of service are most critically determinative of the personal representative’s access rights under Nebraska law.

The Nebraska Uniform Digital Assets Law, as codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3501 et seq., specifically addresses the rights and duties of custodians and users concerning digital assets. Section 30-3523 of this law establishes that a digital asset fiduciary has the power to access and control digital assets of the decedent or grantor, as if they were the user. This power is generally granted unless the user has specifically directed in a digital asset or other record that the fiduciary not have access. The law distinguishes between the right to access and the right to control. Access refers to the ability to view or retrieve a digital asset, while control implies the ability to manage, modify, or dispose of it. The question hinges on the fiduciary’s ability to take action on a digital asset, which falls under the umbrella of control. Therefore, a digital asset fiduciary in Nebraska, absent any contrary direction from the user, possesses the authority to manage and transfer digital assets, akin to managing tangible property. This aligns with the broader intent of estate planning laws to ensure that a person’s assets, whether digital or physical, can be administered by their chosen representative. The other options misrepresent the scope of a fiduciary’s powers or the specific provisions within Nebraska’s digital asset legislation. For instance, requiring a court order for every action is not a blanket requirement under the law for all digital assets, and limiting access solely to information rather than control misinterprets the definition of a fiduciary’s role in managing assets. The concept of a “digital will” is not a defined term in Nebraska law that dictates fiduciary powers.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-3901 et seq., grants a fiduciary the authority to access a digital asset account. Specifically, Nebraska law distinguishes between digital assets that are merely content and those that confer rights or obligations. Under Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-3903, a digital asset is defined as an electronic record in which a party has a right or interest. This definition encompasses a wide range of digital assets, including those that represent financial interests or provide access to services. A person who holds a digital asset in a custodial relationship is generally permitted to grant access to a fiduciary. The Nebraska Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act aims to provide a clear framework for fiduciaries to manage a decedent’s digital assets. This includes provisions for granting access to online accounts, digital communications, and other digital property. The statute prioritizes the user’s intent, often expressed through an online tool provided by the digital asset custodian, but also provides default rules when such intent is not clearly expressed. The core principle is to allow fiduciaries to act on behalf of the user’s digital estate in a manner consistent with their offline estate. The statute also addresses limitations on access, such as when the terms of service of a digital asset custodian prohibit such access, or when the digital asset itself is not transferable. However, the general intent of the law is to facilitate fiduciary control over digital assets to ensure proper estate administration.

Nebraska’s Digital Asset Act, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3401 et seq., addresses the rights and responsibilities surrounding digital assets upon a user’s death or incapacitation. The Act defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records in which a user has a right or interest, excluding the underlying asset or liability. When a user dies, the Act grants the user’s “personal representative” the authority to access and control the user’s digital assets, provided the user has not provided a contrary instruction in a separate record. A “contrary instruction” is an instruction in a record that is executed after the user’s death or incapacitation, or that expressly provides that the instruction will not be effective upon the user’s death or incapacitation. However, the Act also recognizes the importance of terms of service agreements with digital asset custodians. If the custodian’s terms of service are inconsistent with the user’s digital asset instructions, the terms of service generally prevail, unless the user has provided a specific, legally compliant digital asset instruction that overrides the terms of service. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy’s will, executed prior to the Act’s effective date and not specifically referencing digital assets, would likely not be considered a “contrary instruction” as defined by the Act. Furthermore, without an explicit digital asset instruction or a court order, the custodian’s terms of service would govern the disposition of the online gaming account, which is a digital asset. Therefore, the custodian’s terms of service dictate the access and control of Mr. Abernathy’s online gaming account.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Nebraska, governs how a personal representative or other fiduciary can access a decedent’s digital assets. Section 30-3801 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes defines “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records in which a person has a right or interest. Section 30-3804 outlines the methods by which a user can grant access to digital assets to a fiduciary. This includes a “terms-of-service agreement” or “other record” that specifically grants the fiduciary the right to access, control, or dispose of digital assets. In the scenario provided, the decedent, Elara Vance, explicitly granted her nominated personal representative, Mr. Silas Croft, access to her cryptocurrency wallet and online financial accounts through a written directive. This directive, being a record that specifically grants access, aligns with the statutory requirements under Nebraska law for a fiduciary to obtain control over digital assets. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through such directives. Therefore, Silas Croft, as the nominated personal representative, can legally access Elara Vance’s digital assets as per her explicit instructions. The absence of a specific provision in the will does not negate the efficacy of a separate, clear directive concerning digital asset access, as long as it meets the statutory criteria for granting such access.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFUADAA), as codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-501 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access digital assets. A fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, is granted access to a user’s digital assets if the user has provided consent in a record. This consent can be in the form of a “digital asset control document” or an “online tool” provided by a digital asset custodian. If no specific consent is given, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian and applicable law. For instance, an executor might be able to access certain digital assets if the terms of service allow it, or if state law mandates such access for estate administration purposes. However, direct access to private communications, such as emails or direct messages, is often restricted unless the user has explicitly consented to the fiduciary accessing these specific types of content. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage the user’s digital estate. The UFUADAA in Nebraska specifically addresses the categories of digital assets and the level of access granted to fiduciaries, differentiating between digital assets that are the user’s property (like digital currency) and those that are merely content created or stored by the user (like social media posts). The Act clarifies that a fiduciary can access digital assets held by a custodian, but this access is subject to the custodian’s terms of service, unless the user has provided a contrary directive. The core principle is that the user’s intent, as expressed through consent, is paramount.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, provides a framework for how a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3801 et seq., a fiduciary’s right to access digital assets is primarily determined by the terms of a digital asset control document or by the online service provider’s terms of service. If the digital asset owner has provided explicit instructions in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record, these instructions generally govern. In the absence of such instructions, the fiduciary’s authority is contingent upon the online service provider’s terms of service, which may grant or restrict access. Nebraska law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in legally recognized documents. It’s important to note that the law distinguishes between the content of digital communications and other digital assets. Access to digital communications, like emails, often requires a specific court order unless the user has explicitly authorized access in a control document. Therefore, the most direct and legally sound method for a fiduciary to gain access is through a properly executed digital asset control document that specifically addresses the assets in question.

The Nebraska Uniform Digital Assets Act (NUDAA), codified in Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 16, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, Section 30-1603 outlines the definition of a “digital asset” as an electronic record that the user has a right of ownership in. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of digital property. Section 30-1605 provides a hierarchy for controlling digital assets, prioritizing the user’s online tool’s terms of service, followed by a specific provision in the user’s will or trust, then by a digital asset power of attorney, and finally by other means of accessing the digital asset. The key is that a digital asset is defined by the user’s ownership right in an electronic record, and its disposition is governed by a layered legal framework, with the user’s intent as expressed through legally valid instruments being paramount. The question hinges on understanding this foundational definition and the framework for its control under Nebraska law.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, primarily governs how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets upon their incapacity or death. Section 30-4209 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes outlines the scope of a fiduciary’s authority. Specifically, it states that a fiduciary’s access to a digital asset is subject to the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. This means that even with a court order or a valid digital asset power of attorney, the fiduciary’s ability to manage, distribute, or control the digital assets is ultimately constrained by the specific rules and agreements established by the platform holding those assets. For instance, a social media account or cloud storage service might have terms that prohibit the transfer of certain digital assets or restrict access to specific types of content, regardless of the fiduciary’s legal standing. Therefore, the fiduciary’s power is not absolute but is inherently limited by the custodian’s policies.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Nebraska, governs how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Section 30-4209 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes addresses the rights of a fiduciary when a user has not provided explicit consent or refusal for access. In such cases, a fiduciary may be granted access to specific digital assets if such access is reasonably necessary to perform their fiduciary duties. However, this access is not unlimited. The law distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the nature of the fiduciary relationship. For instance, the fiduciary must demonstrate a legitimate need to access the digital assets to administer the user’s estate or manage their affairs, as outlined in their fiduciary role. The law also prioritizes the user’s intent and privacy, meaning that even with reasonable necessity, access may be denied if it appears contrary to the user’s expressed or implied wishes. The absence of a specific instruction in the user’s terms of service or an online tool does not automatically grant unrestricted access. Instead, it triggers a standard that requires the fiduciary to prove the necessity and alignment with the user’s likely intent, subject to court oversight if disputes arise. The core principle is balancing the fiduciary’s duty to manage assets with the deceased user’s privacy and autonomy over their digital life.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 12, adopted by Nebraska, governs “Controllable Electronic Records” (CERs). A CER is defined as a record that can be provided to a transferable record by the person that controls the CER, and the transferable record reflects that the person providing the transferable record is the person that controls the CER. Section 12-102(a)(1) of the UCC defines a controllable electronic record. Section 12-102(a)(11) defines a transferable record as an electronic record that is issued by a person that is not an electronic storage media, and that the person that controls the electronic record has the power to provide to a transferable record. Section 12-102(a)(10) defines control of an electronic record as the power to exercise exclusive control over the electronic record. Nebraska’s adoption of UCC Article 12 aims to provide a legal framework for digital assets that are not otherwise covered by existing statutes, such as traditional securities or negotiable instruments. The key differentiator for a CER is the ability to transfer control of the underlying asset represented by the electronic record, which is facilitated by the concept of a transferable record. This transferability and the clear definition of control are crucial for the legal recognition and enforceability of transactions involving these digital assets within Nebraska. The scenario describes an electronic record that can be transferred by its controller, and this transferability is explicitly linked to the controller’s ability to provide the record to a transferable record, aligning with the definition of a controllable electronic record under UCC Article 12.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, provides a framework for how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3901 et seq., a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is generally governed by the terms of a digital asset control document. If no such document exists, or if it does not grant specific authority, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the Act itself, which prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. In the absence of a control document, Nebraska law outlines a hierarchy of access. For digital assets held in a service provider’s electronic storage, the Act allows a fiduciary to request access. The service provider can then comply with the request or petition the court for instructions. The Act also addresses situations where a user has not granted access to a fiduciary. In such cases, the fiduciary may only access digital assets that the user could have accessed directly without a court order, and only if the user’s account or digital assets are not otherwise accessible by the fiduciary. This provision is crucial for understanding the limitations on fiduciary access when explicit consent is absent, balancing the need for fiduciary administration with user privacy. The core principle is that absent a clear directive from the user, a fiduciary’s access is significantly constrained, and the service provider’s terms of service may also play a role, though they cannot override the statutory framework for fiduciary access.

Nebraska’s Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NeUFADAA), as codified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-5201 et seq., addresses how fiduciaries can access digital assets. A key distinction within the Act is between “digital assets” and “digital accounts.” Digital assets are broadly defined to include electronic records that the user has a right of ownership or license to. Digital accounts, on the other hand, refer to the specific online service or platform where these assets are held. When a user creates a digital estate plan, they can grant specific instructions or delegate authority to a fiduciary regarding their digital assets. This delegation can be direct, through a tool provided by the digital asset custodian, or indirect, through a will, trust, or power of attorney that specifically mentions digital assets. The NeUFADAA prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in these documents. However, the Act also acknowledges that custodians may have their own terms of service that could potentially conflict with a user’s directives. In such cases, the Act provides a framework for resolving these conflicts, generally favoring the user’s intent unless the terms of service are explicitly clear and legally binding in a way that overrides the fiduciary access granted by the Act. The Act’s purpose is to provide a clear legal framework for managing digital assets after death or incapacitation, ensuring that fiduciaries can effectively manage these assets in accordance with the user’s wishes. The concept of “custodian” is central, as they are the entities that hold and manage the digital assets. The Act requires custodians to respond to a fiduciary’s request within a specified timeframe, typically 60 days, and allows them to impose reasonable charges for their services. The scope of access granted to a fiduciary is also critical, as it can range from full control to limited access for specific purposes, such as content retrieval. The Act aims to balance the user’s privacy, the custodian’s obligations, and the fiduciary’s responsibilities.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, provides a framework for fiduciaries to access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-501 et seq. outlines these provisions. When a user dies or becomes incapacitated, a fiduciary, such as an executor or agent under a power of attorney, may need to manage digital assets. The Act establishes a hierarchy of consent for accessing these assets. The primary method of granting access is through a “tool” created by the digital asset custodian. If no tool exists, or if the user has not used one, then a “digital asset control document” (like a will or power of attorney) that specifically grants authority over digital assets is considered. If neither of these is available, the fiduciary’s authority is determined by the law governing the fiduciary’s duties, which in Nebraska would generally refer to the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act itself and other relevant probate or agency statutes. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in these documents. For instance, a will that explicitly grants authority over digital assets would be honored. However, if the will is silent on digital assets but names an executor, the executor’s powers regarding digital assets are then determined by the Act’s default provisions, which might require court order or specific custodian consent depending on the type of asset and custodian’s terms. The Act also allows users to opt-out of fiduciary access. In this scenario, the will’s specific mention of “all digital accounts and associated data” is a clear indication of the user’s intent to grant the executor access. Therefore, the executor’s authority would stem from this specific provision within the will, which aligns with the principles of the UFADAA as implemented in Nebraska.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 16, addresses how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 30-1609 outlines the procedure for a fiduciary to access digital assets. This section establishes that a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is governed by the terms of a digital asset account agreement or a specific court order. If the account agreement grants the fiduciary access, that access is generally permissible. However, if the agreement is silent or prohibits access, a court order is typically required to compel access. This is to respect the terms of service and the intent of the digital asset custodian and the account holder. Therefore, when a digital asset account agreement explicitly grants a fiduciary access, that provision is the primary determinant of the fiduciary’s ability to access the assets, superseding the need for a separate court order solely for access purposes, provided the fiduciary acts within the scope of their authority.

Nebraska’s Digital Asset Act, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-3401 et seq., governs the rights and responsibilities of individuals and fiduciaries concerning digital assets. A key aspect is the definition and scope of “digital asset,” which is broadly defined as an electronic record that the account holder has a right to initiate, receive, or otherwise control or direct. This definition is critical in determining whether a particular digital asset falls under the purview of the Act. When a user grants access to their digital assets, the nature of that grant is paramount. A “custodian” is defined as a person or entity that at any time has possession, control, or custody of a digital asset on behalf of another person. If an individual grants a specific person, like a digital executor, the authority to manage their digital assets, this grant is generally honored by custodians, provided it complies with the Act’s requirements for a valid instruction. The Act distinguishes between a user’s ability to “control” a digital asset and a custodian’s role in “possessing” or “controlling” it on behalf of the user. The intent of the user in granting access, as documented in a valid instruction, is the primary determinant of how those assets are managed post-mortem or in case of incapacitation, subject to any applicable terms of service that do not conflict with the Act. The Act aims to provide a legal framework for the disposition of digital assets, mirroring traditional property laws where possible, while acknowledging the unique characteristics of digital information. The concept of “control” is central to the user’s rights, and the Act provides mechanisms for a user to direct a custodian concerning the disposition of their digital assets.

Nebraska’s approach to digital assets, particularly concerning their classification and the application of estate planning principles, is governed by statutes such as the Nebraska Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NUFADAA). This act, largely mirroring the Uniform Law Commission’s model, provides a framework for how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. The core principle is to respect the terms of the digital asset account agreement and any specific instructions provided by the user, such as through a digital estate plan or a specific authorization within the account. If no specific instructions exist, the fiduciary’s access is generally determined by the user’s will or other estate planning documents, and then by state law. The law distinguishes between different types of digital assets, such as content (emails, photos) and digital services (online accounts, subscriptions). Access to content is generally more permissive for fiduciaries than access to digital services, where terms of service often restrict third-party access even after death. The Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-5201 et seq. outlines these provisions. Specifically, the act allows a fiduciary to terminate or continue a digital service in accordance with the user’s terms of service and the fiduciary’s duties. It also clarifies that a fiduciary does not gain ownership rights to the digital assets themselves, but rather the authority to manage them according to the user’s intent and legal obligations. The concept of a “digital agent” or a specific provision in a will directing the handling of digital assets is crucial for ensuring a smooth transition of control and management. The law prioritizes the user’s intent, as expressed through their account agreements and estate planning documents, over default provisions. Therefore, a well-drafted digital estate plan is paramount for individuals who wish to dictate the disposition and management of their digital footprint after death, ensuring compliance with Nebraska law and the specific terms of service of various digital platforms.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Nebraska, governs how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Specifically, Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-4208 outlines the types of digital assets that a fiduciary can access and the conditions under which such access is granted. For digital assets held by a custodian, the statute specifies that a fiduciary may be granted access if the user has granted consent in a digital asset control document. This document can be a will, a trust, a power of attorney, or another record. The statute also addresses situations where no digital asset control document exists. In such cases, a fiduciary can request access to digital assets from a custodian. The custodian then has a period of time, typically 60 days, to respond to the request. If the custodian has a reasonable basis to believe the request is inconsistent with a digital asset owner’s expressed intent, or if the custodian has received a conflicting request from the digital asset owner, the custodian may refuse the request. However, if the custodian does not provide a response within the specified timeframe, or if the custodian refuses the request without a reasonable basis, the fiduciary can petition a court for an order to compel access. The court order then serves as authorization for the custodian to grant access. This process emphasizes the importance of clear intent from the digital asset owner and provides a legal framework for fiduciaries to manage digital assets in the absence of explicit instructions, while also protecting custodians from liability. The scenario presented involves a fiduciary attempting to access digital assets without a specific digital asset control document, necessitating the custodian’s response and potential court intervention if the custodian unreasonably delays or denies access.

The Nebraska Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NUFADAA), codified in Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 16, provides a framework for fiduciaries to access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Section 30-1611 specifically addresses the authority of a fiduciary to access digital assets of a deceased user. This section clarifies that a fiduciary with a court order or a valid digital asset power of attorney can access digital assets. However, the Act also recognizes the importance of the user’s intent and the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Specifically, Section 30-1614 outlines limitations on a fiduciary’s authority, stating that a fiduciary cannot access digital assets that the user had a reasonable expectation to be private. This includes communications that the user reasonably expected to be private, such as personal emails or direct messages, unless the user explicitly granted access to such content. The core principle is balancing the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate with the user’s right to privacy concerning certain digital communications. Therefore, while a fiduciary can manage digital assets, access to content reasonably expected to be private is restricted unless specifically authorized by the user’s controlling document or a court order that overrides such privacy expectations. The scenario presented involves a fiduciary seeking access to a deceased individual’s private correspondence stored on a cloud service. Under NUFADAA, the fiduciary’s ability to access these private communications is contingent upon the deceased user’s explicit authorization in a controlling document or a court order that specifically permits such access, overriding the reasonable expectation of privacy. Without such explicit authorization, the fiduciary cannot access these private communications.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Nebraska, specifically addresses the rights of a fiduciary to access a principal’s digital assets. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-2901 et seq., a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is generally governed by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian and any explicit instructions provided by the user in a digital asset power of attorney or will. However, the law establishes a hierarchy of control. A digital asset fiduciary who has been granted access rights by the user, either through a digital asset power of attorney or a will, can compel disclosure from a custodian, provided the user has not explicitly prohibited such disclosure in a separate record. The statute prioritizes the user’s intent. If the user’s intent is unclear, or if the user has not provided explicit instructions, the fiduciary can petition a court for access. The key is that the fiduciary must have been granted authority to control the digital asset. The statute does not automatically grant a fiduciary access to all digital assets; rather, it provides a framework for how such access can be obtained and enforced, balancing the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s duty. Therefore, the most accurate determination of a fiduciary’s right to access a deceased individual’s digital assets in Nebraska hinges on whether the fiduciary has been granted authority by the user in a legally recognized document, such as a digital asset power of attorney, and if there are no explicit prohibitions from the user to the contrary.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Nebraska law, specifically addresses how a personal representative or other fiduciary can access a deceased person’s digital assets. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3901 et seq., a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is primarily derived from the terms of the digital asset owner’s account or by a specific authorization in a will, trust, or power of attorney. While a general power of attorney can grant broad authority, it must explicitly mention digital assets or grant authority to manage online accounts for it to be effective concerning digital assets after the principal’s death. The law distinguishes between content that is property of the user and content that is the property of the digital asset custodian. A fiduciary generally gains access to the content of digital assets, such as emails and documents, but not necessarily to the digital asset custodian’s proprietary information or systems. The statute emphasizes the importance of the digital asset owner’s intent and the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Therefore, for a personal representative to access a deceased Nebraskan’s online banking portal, they would need to present a court order or other legal documentation demonstrating their authority, and the terms of service of the online banking platform would also govern the extent of access granted. The Nebraska law, aligning with the UFADAA, prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions and the custodian’s terms.

Nebraska’s approach to digital assets, particularly in the context of estate planning and fiduciary duties, is largely shaped by the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and potentially modified by the state legislature. The core principle is that a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, should have access to a user’s digital assets to manage them according to the user’s wishes or the law. However, this access is not unfettered. The law establishes a hierarchy of control. A user can grant specific rights to a fiduciary through an “online tool” provided by a custodian, or by specifying these rights in a will, trust, or power of attorney. If no such explicit authorization exists, the fiduciary’s access is generally limited to digital assets that the user had the right to access and that are reasonably necessary for the fiduciary to perform their duties. The law also considers the terms of service agreements with custodians, which may impose restrictions. In Nebraska, a fiduciary’s ability to access a digital asset is primarily governed by the user’s explicit instructions, either through an online tool, a will, a trust, or a power of attorney. If these explicit instructions are absent or insufficient, the fiduciary’s access is generally limited to digital assets that the user had the right to access and that are necessary for the fiduciary’s duties. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy, the custodian’s terms of service, and the fiduciary’s need to administer the estate or trust. The concept of a “digital asset” under Nebraska law encompasses electronic records that a person has a right to access and control, which includes things like online accounts, digital photographs, and digital communications. The law differentiates between content and the account itself.

The Nebraska Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (NUFADAA), as codified in Nebraska Revised Statutes § 30-1801 et seq., provides a framework for how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, the Act addresses the issue of a user’s intent regarding their digital assets upon their death or incapacitation. A critical aspect is how a user can grant or deny access. If a user has not provided a clear directive in an account agreement or through a separate document, a fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets is governed by the Act’s default provisions. Under Nebraska law, a fiduciary generally cannot access digital assets if the user’s account agreement or a separate record of digital assets explicitly prohibits such access. This prohibition overrides the fiduciary’s general authority. Therefore, for a fiduciary to be able to access digital assets when the user has not provided a specific digital estate plan, the user’s account agreement must not explicitly prohibit such access. The absence of an explicit prohibition is key for the fiduciary to act.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Nebraska Revised Statutes Chapter 30, Article 14, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Section 30-1407 of the Nebraska statutes outlines the limitations on a fiduciary’s authority. It states that a fiduciary may not access certain digital assets if the user’s terms of service agreement explicitly prohibits such access by a fiduciary. This provision is crucial because it balances the fiduciary’s duty to manage the digital estate with the explicit intent of the digital asset custodian and the user as expressed in their agreement. While a fiduciary generally has broad powers, these powers are constrained by the terms of service governing the digital asset. For instance, if a social media platform’s terms of service clearly state that account content is non-transferable and inaccessible by third parties, even a legally appointed executor would be bound by this restriction. This contrasts with assets where the terms of service might permit fiduciary access or are silent on the matter. Therefore, the fiduciary’s access is contingent upon the absence of an explicit prohibition in the terms of service.

In Nebraska, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFUADAA), as adopted and potentially modified by state statute, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Specifically, Section 30-4208 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes addresses the terms-of-service exclusion of fiduciaries. This provision clarifies that a custodian may deny or limit a fiduciary’s access to digital assets if the user’s online tool agreement or terms of service explicitly prohibits or limits such access. This is a critical distinction from situations where a user has provided explicit consent in a will or power of attorney, as the terms of service can act as an independent basis for denial, even if other documentation appears to grant access. The law seeks to balance the user’s intent with the contractual agreements made with digital service providers. Therefore, if the user agreement for their cloud storage service explicitly states that no third party, including fiduciaries appointed via power of attorney, can access the stored data, the custodian can legally deny the fiduciary’s request, regardless of the power of attorney’s validity. This principle is a cornerstone of how digital asset access is managed under UFUADAA in Nebraska, emphasizing the contractual nature of digital asset control.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Nebraska, specifically addresses how a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-501 et seq. outlines these provisions. Under this act, a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is governed by the terms of a specific digital asset account agreement, a court order, or a valid digital asset power of attorney. Critically, a general power of attorney, even if it grants broad authority over property, does not automatically grant access to digital assets unless the digital asset account agreement explicitly permits it or the power of attorney is specifically drafted to include digital assets. The law emphasizes the need for clear intent and specific authorization. In this scenario, the executor’s general authority over the deceased’s estate, as granted by the probate court, does not supersede the terms of the digital asset custodian’s agreement or the specific limitations placed on digital asset access by Nebraska law. Therefore, without a specific digital asset power of attorney or a court order explicitly authorizing access to the online storage service, the executor cannot compel the custodian to grant access. The custodian’s refusal is based on the terms of service and the statutory framework designed to protect user privacy and control over digital assets.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Nebraska, specifically addresses how a fiduciary can access a principal’s digital assets. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-3901 et seq., a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is governed by the terms of the account agreement, a specific digital asset power of attorney, or by court order. The law prioritizes explicit consent given by the user in a record. In the absence of such explicit consent, the fiduciary’s access is limited. While a general power of attorney might grant broad authority over assets, its effectiveness regarding digital assets is contingent on the specific terms used and the custodian’s policies, which are increasingly aligned with UFADAA principles. Nebraska’s adoption of UFADAA aims to provide clarity and a legal framework for fiduciaries managing digital assets, which can include electronic communications, digital financial accounts, and online stored data. The statute emphasizes that a fiduciary cannot be granted access to digital assets that the user has explicitly restricted access to, even if the user has provided a general power of attorney. The key is the specific intent and provision for digital asset access.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, provides a framework for how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-5401 et seq., a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is primarily determined by the terms of the user’s online tool or a separate written instruction. If the user has not provided an online tool designation or a separate written instruction, the fiduciary may be granted access through a court order. However, the Act specifically carves out exceptions for certain types of digital assets or content, such as electronic mail, that may require a court order even if the fiduciary has general access. The critical distinction is between granting access to the digital asset itself (like an account) and the content within that asset, especially if that content is sensitive or private. Nebraska’s adoption of UFADAA emphasizes the user’s intent and the specific methods they employ to grant or restrict access, prioritizing explicit consent through digital tools or written instructions. When these are absent, a judicial determination becomes necessary to balance the fiduciary’s duties with the privacy rights of the user and their estate.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska, specifically addresses the ability of a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, to access a principal’s digital assets. Nebraska Revised Statute § 30-1801 et seq. outlines the framework for this access. Under the Act, a fiduciary’s access to digital assets is generally governed by the terms of a “digital asset control document” or, in its absence, by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. However, the Act also provides for default rules when no such document exists. Section 30-1806(a) of the Nebraska Revised Statutes clarifies that a fiduciary has the right to access the content of electronic communications of the principal only if the principal has granted such access in a digital asset control document. Without this explicit grant, the fiduciary cannot unilaterally access the content of emails, instant messages, or other electronic communications, even if they can access other digital assets like cloud storage containing non-communication content. This distinction is crucial, as it balances the fiduciary’s duty to manage assets with the privacy rights inherent in electronic communications. Therefore, for an executor to access the content of a deceased Nebraskan’s personal email account, a specific provision within a digital asset control document authorizing such access is required.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Nebraska through the Nebraska Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-501 et seq.), governs how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between controlling a digital asset and accessing its content. While a fiduciary generally has the power to control digital assets, direct access to the content of certain digital assets, particularly those that are highly personal or sensitive, may require specific authorization or be subject to limitations. For instance, the act distinguishes between digital assets that are service provider accounts (like email or social media) and those that are digital representations of traditional assets (like digital currency held in a wallet). Section 30-505 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes outlines that a fiduciary’s authority to access the content of a digital asset is governed by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian and any user agreement. The act emphasizes that a fiduciary cannot be granted greater access than the user could have granted to the fiduciary themselves. Therefore, if the terms of service for a particular digital asset platform prohibit direct content access by a third party, even a fiduciary, that prohibition generally holds unless a court order specifically mandates otherwise or the user’s terms of service explicitly grant such access. This means that while a fiduciary might be able to manage an account or transfer digital assets, reading private messages or viewing personal photos might be restricted by the platform’s terms, even with the fiduciary’s authority. The core principle is that the fiduciary steps into the shoes of the user, and if the user’s own terms of service would prevent them from accessing certain content, the fiduciary is similarly bound.