The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, specifically addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Section 15-3006 of the IUDDA outlines the procedure for a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, to gain access to a user’s digital assets. This section establishes that a fiduciary may request access to the digital assets of a deceased user by providing the custodian with a valid court order or a written request accompanied by a certified copy of the user’s death certificate and proof of the fiduciary’s authority. The custodian then has a specified period, typically sixty days, to respond. Crucially, the law differentiates between digital assets that are the property of the user and digital assets that are merely accounts or services provided by a third party. Access to personal digital assets, like emails or stored documents, is generally permitted for a fiduciary to manage the estate, whereas access to certain other types of digital assets may be restricted by terms of service or specific legal provisions. The act aims to balance the deceased user’s privacy with the need for estate administration, ensuring that digital assets are handled appropriately within the broader context of estate planning and probate law in Idaho.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the rights and duties of custodians of digital assets and the rights of beneficiaries. Specifically, Idaho Code Section 15-30-112 governs the termination of a custodian’s duty to a user. This section outlines that a custodian’s duty to a user terminates when the user dies, or when the user’s account with the custodian is terminated. The law distinguishes between the termination of the custodian’s duty and the termination of the user’s ability to access or control the digital assets. While a user’s death triggers certain distribution provisions under the IUDDA, the custodian’s ongoing duty to manage or preserve the digital assets ceases upon the termination of the user’s account. This termination can occur through various means, including the user’s explicit instruction to close the account, or if the account becomes inactive according to the custodian’s terms of service, provided those terms are lawful and do not contravene the IUDDA’s principles regarding user control and beneficiary rights. The IUDDA aims to provide a framework for managing digital assets upon death or incapacity, but the operational cessation of a custodian’s services is primarily linked to the account’s status as defined by the custodian and the user’s agreement, subject to the overarching provisions of the Act.

Idaho Code § 64-101 defines a digital asset as an electronic record that represents a right to a benefit or is a property interest. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of digital property. When considering a digital asset that is not a security, commodity, or financial instrument, its classification under Idaho law hinges on its inherent nature and the rights it represents. Specifically, if the digital asset represents ownership in an enterprise, a debt, or an interest in profits, it would likely fall under the definition of a security. However, if it represents a right to a specific good or service, or a unique digital collectible with no inherent financial yield beyond potential resale value, it would be considered a digital asset without being classified as a security or commodity under most interpretations of the Idaho Digital Assets Law. The key differentiator is whether the asset is an investment contract or a direct representation of a tangible or intangible item or service, excluding those explicitly defined as securities or commodities. Therefore, a digital asset that is solely a unique digital artwork, verifiable through blockchain technology and representing ownership of that specific artwork, would be classified as a digital asset but not a security or commodity under Idaho law, as it does not inherently represent an investment in a common enterprise with profits derived from the efforts of others, nor is it a commodity.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a user’s death or incapacity. Section 15-3007 of the IUDDA specifically outlines the permissible methods for a user to grant access to their digital assets. This section permits a user to grant access through a “Terms of Service Agreement” with the digital asset custodian, a separate “Online Tool” provided by the custodian for designating beneficiaries, or a will or trust that specifically directs the disposition of digital assets. The question presents a scenario where a user’s will attempts to direct the disposition of their digital assets. For this to be legally effective under the IUDDA, the will must be valid and specifically contemplate and direct the disposition of digital assets. The IUDDA prioritizes the terms of service and online tools provided by custodians, but a properly executed will can override or supplement these if it clearly addresses digital assets. In this case, the will’s broad statement about “all remaining personal property” might not be specific enough to be interpreted as a direction for digital assets if the custodian’s terms of service or online tool have already been utilized or if the will predates the custodian’s specific provisions for digital asset inheritance. However, if the will is the primary or only directive, and it is properly executed according to Idaho law, it can serve as a valid method for disposition. The key is the will’s specificity regarding digital assets. The other options represent methods not explicitly recognized as primary or exclusive methods for granting access under the IUDDA, or they describe actions that do not constitute a legal directive for disposition. For instance, simply possessing the password does not grant legal ownership or access rights after death without a proper directive. Similarly, a verbal instruction to a family member is not a legally recognized method under the IUDDA for a custodian to release digital assets. Therefore, a valid will that specifically directs the disposition of digital assets is a legally recognized method.

Idaho Code § 28-51-102 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include “a representation of economic, property, or entitlement value that exists in a digital medium.” This definition is crucial for determining the scope of digital asset law in Idaho. When considering the transfer of digital assets, particularly those that are not financial assets or convertible virtual currency, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), as adopted in Idaho Code Chapter 28-51, governs how a fiduciary can access and manage these assets. Section 28-51-201 outlines the general principles for a custodian to honor a user’s instructions regarding digital assets. The key is whether the specific asset falls within the statutory definition and if the terms of service of the platform hosting the asset permit such a transfer. A digital collectible, like a unique piece of digital art represented by a non-fungible token (NFT), would likely qualify as a digital asset under Idaho law if it represents economic or property value. The fiduciary’s ability to transfer it would depend on the terms of service of the blockchain or platform, and whether the fiduciary has been granted the necessary control or access rights, as per the user’s instructions or a court order. The analysis does not involve any mathematical calculations.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. Idaho Code Section 15-30-107 outlines the general rights of a fiduciary, including a personal representative, to access a digital asset account. Specifically, a fiduciary generally has the right to access the content of a digital asset account if the user has not expressed a contrary intent. The Act distinguishes between the right to access the content and the right to control or transfer the digital asset itself. Idaho Code Section 15-30-109 details the control of digital assets. A user can grant a fiduciary control over digital assets by using an online tool to grant specific digital assets to a designated recipient or by providing a separate written authorization. In the absence of such specific instructions, a fiduciary’s access is generally limited to what is necessary to administer the estate, and they cannot necessarily assume control or transfer the asset unless explicitly permitted by the user or the terms of service, subject to applicable law. The IUDDA prioritizes the user’s expressed intent. If the user provided a separate written authorization or used an online tool to designate a recipient for their digital assets, that instruction supersedes the general provisions regarding fiduciary access. The question asks about the most direct method for a user to ensure their digital assets are managed by a designated individual after their passing, bypassing potential limitations or ambiguities in default provisions. Providing a separate, explicit written authorization specifically for digital asset management, or utilizing an online tool provided by the custodian that allows for the designation of a digital asset recipient, are the most direct and legally sound methods under the IUDDA to achieve this outcome. The other options represent less direct or potentially insufficient methods.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacity. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between a “custodian” and an “online service.” A custodian is defined as a person or entity that controls, holds, or otherwise has possession or power over a digital asset. This typically includes financial institutions, cryptocurrency exchanges, or cloud storage providers. An online service, on the other hand, is an entity that provides services for storing or transferring digital assets, but does not hold or control the digital asset itself in the same manner as a custodian. The IUDDA distinguishes between these roles because the methods for accessing or transferring digital assets differ based on the nature of the entity holding them. Specifically, the Act outlines procedures for a user to grant access to their digital assets to a fiduciary or beneficiary through an “online tool” provided by the service, or by a will or other testamentary document. However, the ability to compel a custodian to disclose or transfer digital assets is generally more direct than compelling an online service that merely facilitates access without direct control. The IUDDA aims to provide a framework for digital asset succession that aligns with traditional estate planning principles while accommodating the unique characteristics of digital property. The Act’s emphasis on user control through online tools and the distinction between custodians and online services are central to its practical application in estate administration.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and duties related to digital assets. Section 15-3001(10) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that a person owns or has a right to possess or control, other than the legal or equitable interest in tangible property or in tangible personal property. This definition is crucial for understanding what falls under the purview of the act. Idaho Code Section 15-3004 addresses the effect of an account agreement on a user’s digital assets. It states that a custodian of a digital asset may refuse to comply with a user’s request to access or transfer a digital asset if the user’s account agreement with the custodian prohibits it. This provision highlights the primacy of contractual agreements between users and custodians in determining access and transfer rights, even when the IUDATA provides a framework for digital asset management. Therefore, the account agreement is a primary determinant of whether a custodian must comply with a user’s instructions.

Idaho Code § 28-51-102(12) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include a virtual currency, a non-fungible token, or other intangible asset that is: (A) represented in a digital or electronic format; (B) owned or controlled by, or on behalf of, a person; and (C) capable of being transferred, sold, or otherwise conveyed. Idaho Code § 28-51-103 addresses the control of digital assets, stating that a person has control of a digital asset if the person has the ability to exercise exclusive control over the digital asset. Idaho Code § 28-51-104 further clarifies that a person’s control of a digital asset is not affected by the person’s inability to use or access the digital asset, such as through loss of a private key. The core concept here is the ability to exercise exclusive control, not necessarily the physical possession or immediate usability of the asset. Therefore, even if a digital asset is inaccessible due to a lost private key, the underlying ownership and control framework as defined by Idaho law remains intact as long as the person retains the ability to exercise exclusive control over the asset’s ledger entry or associated rights, irrespective of current access. The question tests the understanding of “control” in the context of digital assets under Idaho law, distinguishing it from mere access or usability.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Section 15-30-108 of the IUDDA outlines how a user’s digital assets can be controlled by a user’s digital asset fiduciary. The law establishes a hierarchy of control. If the user has not provided a specific digital asset will or a separate document granting access, the fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets is determined by the terms of service of the online service provider. However, if the user has executed a digital asset will or a separate document that specifically grants access to digital assets, this document generally supersedes the terms of service, provided it is legally valid and properly executed. The fiduciary must provide a copy of the user’s death certificate and the legal document granting them authority to the service provider. The service provider then has a duty to respond to the fiduciary’s request. This mechanism ensures that a user’s digital legacy can be managed in accordance with their expressed wishes, balancing privacy concerns with the need for estate administration. The core principle is that the user’s intent, as documented, is paramount.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified at Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-30-117 addresses the rights of a user’s representative to access digital assets. This section distinguishes between “content” and “catalogs of electronic communications.” For digital assets that are not electronic communications, the user’s representative generally has the same rights as the user. However, for electronic communications, the IUDDA requires a specific court order to access them, unless the user’s terms of service explicitly grant such access to the representative. In the scenario presented, the deceased user, Mr. Aris Thorne, possessed a cryptocurrency wallet, which is typically classified as a digital asset. The question revolves around whether his designated digital asset representative can access this wallet. The IUDDA, in Idaho Code § 15-30-117(b), states that a digital asset representative may access a digital asset that is not a catalog of electronic communications. A cryptocurrency wallet, holding digital currency and associated private keys, is not considered a catalog of electronic communications but rather a digital asset in its own right. Therefore, the representative has the authority to access it, subject to the terms of service of the platform hosting the wallet, but the IUDDA itself grants this right for non-communication assets. The critical distinction for access hinges on whether the asset falls under the definition of “catalog of electronic communications” or another category of digital asset. Since a cryptocurrency wallet is not a catalog of electronic communications, the representative’s access is permissible under the IUDDA without a separate court order specifically for that asset type, assuming the terms of service do not impose additional restrictions that would override the statutory grant. The Idaho legislature’s intent with the IUDDA was to provide a framework for the orderly transfer of digital assets, mirroring traditional property law where possible, while acknowledging the unique nature of digital information.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-30-108 addresses the disclosure of digital assets to a personal representative. This section establishes that a person who has lawful control over a digital asset, such as a custodian, must comply with a request for disclosure from the personal representative of the deceased user’s estate. The law presumes that the user has granted consent for the personal representative to access their digital assets, unless the user has explicitly opted out through a specific provision in an online tool or a will. The personal representative’s authority is derived from their appointment by the court. Therefore, when a personal representative presents a court order and proof of their appointment, the custodian is legally obligated to provide access to the digital assets, provided the user has not explicitly prohibited it through a valid method recognized by the IUDATA. This framework ensures that digital assets can be managed as part of the estate administration process, balancing the deceased’s privacy with the need for estate settlement.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and obligations concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-30-108 addresses the disclosure of digital assets by a custodian. Under this provision, a custodian of a digital asset may disclose to the user’s representative the content of the user’s digital estate. The determination of what constitutes a “user’s representative” is crucial. Idaho Code § 15-30-102 defines “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that the user has a right of ownership in. The act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the methods for granting access. A user can grant access to their digital assets through an online tool provided by the custodian, a will, a trust, a power of attorney, or other record. However, when a user has not provided explicit instructions through these means, the IUDATA outlines a default framework. Idaho Code § 15-30-109 provides that if a user has not granted access to a digital asset through an online tool, the user’s representative may request access to the digital asset. The custodian must then provide access if the representative provides the custodian with a valid court order or other valid authority. In the scenario presented, the deceased, Mr. Silas Croft, did not utilize an online tool to grant access to his cryptocurrency holdings. His will, however, clearly designates Ms. Anya Sharma as his executor and grants her authority over his estate, which would include his digital assets. Therefore, Ms. Sharma, as the appointed executor with explicit testamentary direction, qualifies as the user’s representative with the legal authority to request access to Mr. Croft’s digital assets from the custodian, provided she presents the necessary documentation, such as a certified copy of the will and potentially a court order if the custodian’s policy requires it for assets not managed by an online tool. The custodian’s refusal based solely on the absence of an online tool, when a valid will designates an executor with authority over the estate, would contravene the intent and provisions of the Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act, which aims to facilitate the orderly transfer of digital assets.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. A crucial aspect of this act is the distinction between “custodians” and “digital assets” themselves. Custodians are entities that hold or control digital assets on behalf of users. Digital assets, as defined by the IUDDA, encompass electronic records that have value. The act provides a framework for accessing these assets, prioritizing the user’s online account terms of service. If the terms of service are silent or do not prohibit disclosure, the personal representative of the estate, or a delegate with a court order or valid power of attorney, can access the digital assets. In the absence of specific instructions or terms of service, the IUDDA grants the personal representative the ability to access digital assets to the extent the user could have accessed them. This access is not absolute; it is limited by the terms of service and the nature of the digital asset. The question focuses on identifying the entity that *holds* the digital asset, not the asset itself or the user. Therefore, the correct classification for a service provider that stores and manages a user’s cryptocurrency wallet is a custodian under the IUDDA. This aligns with the broad definition of a custodian as an entity that holds a digital asset on behalf of another person.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified at Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-30-108 governs the rights of a user’s representative to access digital assets. This section clarifies that a user’s representative may access the user’s digital assets, subject to certain conditions. The Act differentiates between online services that store content created by the user and those that provide only access to the user’s digital assets. For services that provide access to digital assets, the representative generally has the right to access those assets. This principle is crucial for estate planning and the proper administration of digital property. The core concept is that the IUDDA grants a legal framework for managing digital assets in a manner analogous to tangible property, ensuring that beneficiaries and estate representatives can fulfill their duties. The law aims to provide clarity and prevent the loss of valuable digital information. The correct interpretation hinges on understanding the scope of “digital asset” and the authority granted to a “user’s representative” under Idaho law, specifically within the context of online service providers. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent, as expressed in their will or other directives, while balancing the terms of service of online providers.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Idaho Code Section 15-30-107 addresses the rights of a digital asset owner’s representative. This section clarifies that a digital asset owner’s representative, such as an executor or administrator, has the right to access and control the digital assets of the deceased, subject to any terms of service or other agreements. The act distinguishes between different types of digital assets, including content that is a person’s own creation and content to which the user has a right of ownership. When dealing with a digital asset custodian, the representative must provide the custodian with a valid court order or other legal authority, such as letters testamentary or letters of administration, demonstrating their appointment. The custodian then has a duty to comply with the representative’s request. The explanation of the scenario hinges on understanding that a digital asset owner’s representative, as defined and empowered by the IUDATA, can indeed compel a custodian to provide access to the deceased’s digital assets, provided the proper legal documentation is presented. The core principle is that the representative steps into the shoes of the deceased regarding these assets, within the framework established by the law and the custodian’s terms of service.

Idaho’s Digital Asset Law, specifically the Idaho Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (IUFAADA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses how a fiduciary can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. The Act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the methods by which access can be granted. A key aspect is the hierarchy of control. The law prioritizes a digital owner’s explicit intent as expressed through an online tool or a specific direction within a will or trust. If no such direction exists, the Act then looks to the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. Failing that, the law may permit access based on the fiduciary’s legal authority, subject to specific limitations. In this scenario, the digital asset owner created a specific online tool for their digital assets, clearly designating their daughter as the recipient and granting her access. This direct designation through a platform specifically designed for managing digital asset succession overrides any general provisions that might exist in the custodian’s terms of service or the owner’s will if those documents did not specifically address digital assets in a manner that conflicts with the online tool’s instructions. The law is designed to respect the user’s explicit intent for their digital property. Therefore, the daughter, as designated through the online tool, has the right to access the digital assets.

The Idaho Digital Assets Law, specifically Idaho Code Title 68, Chapter 52, addresses the legal status and treatment of digital assets. When a digital asset is held by a custodian, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) as adopted in Idaho, governs how a fiduciary can access and control these assets upon the death or incapacity of the owner. The law distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the terms of service agreements governing them. For a digital asset that is a “content” or “consumer” digital asset, meaning it is primarily for the personal use of the account holder and not for commercial purposes, the terms of service of the online platform are paramount. If the terms of service explicitly grant the account holder the right to designate a beneficiary or provide for the distribution of the digital asset upon death, and the owner has properly designated a beneficiary through the platform’s tools, that designation generally controls. Idaho Code Section 68-5203(2)(a) states that the terms of service of an electronic communication service or remote computing service may provide for the distribution of digital assets upon the death of the user. Therefore, if the terms of service for “ChronoVault,” a hypothetical platform for storing personal digital journals and photographs, allow for beneficiary designation and the owner, Ms. Anya Sharma, has followed these procedures to designate her nephew, Mr. Rohan Sharma, the custodian must honor this designation. The question asks about the custodian’s obligation regarding a digital asset that is a “content” digital asset, and the scenario clearly indicates that the terms of service permit beneficiary designation.

Idaho’s Digital Assets Law, particularly as it relates to fiduciary duties and the management of digital assets upon death or incapacity, draws from principles of agency and property law. When a person becomes incapacitated, their appointed agent under a durable power of attorney for digital assets, or a court-appointed conservator, assumes control. The Idaho Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (IDUFADAA), found in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs this. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions, often found in an “electronic agent agreement” or a digital assets will. In the absence of such instructions, the law provides a hierarchy of access for fiduciaries and family members. A fiduciary’s duty is to act in accordance with the user’s intent and the terms of the governing instrument. Specifically, an agent acting under a durable power of attorney for digital assets in Idaho has a duty to manage those assets prudently and in the best interest of the principal, much like a trustee or agent managing traditional assets. This includes respecting any terms of service or end-user license agreements associated with the digital assets, provided they do not conflict with the principal’s expressed wishes or Idaho law. The fiduciary must also maintain confidentiality regarding the digital assets and their contents, unless disclosure is necessary for the proper administration of the principal’s affairs or is permitted by law. The Idaho legislature has carefully crafted this framework to balance the need for access with the protection of privacy and the user’s control over their digital legacy. The core principle is to ensure that digital assets are managed and distributed according to the owner’s wishes, even when they are unable to do so themselves.

Idaho’s Digital Asset Law, specifically Chapter 10 of Title 15 of the Idaho Statutes, addresses the rights and responsibilities surrounding digital assets upon a user’s death. The law establishes a framework for custodians to grant access to digital assets to a designated agent or beneficiary. Under Idaho Code Section 15-10-106, a custodian of a digital asset must comply with a request for disclosure of the digital asset or the content of electronic communications of the user to the extent the custodian is in possession of the digital asset or content. This compliance is required if the request is accompanied by a valid court order or a valid written authorization from the user. The statute also clarifies that a user may grant specific authority to an agent to access their digital assets. The question asks about the primary legal mechanism for an executor to gain access to a deceased user’s digital assets in Idaho, assuming no prior specific digital asset will or power of attorney was executed. In such a scenario, the executor would typically need a court order, such as letters testamentary or a similar probate court directive, which serves as the “valid court order” contemplated by Idaho Code Section 15-10-106 for custodians to release information. The executor’s role is to administer the estate, which includes gathering all assets, both tangible and digital. Without a specific digital asset directive or power of attorney naming an agent for digital assets, the general probate process and the court’s authority over the estate are the governing factors. Therefore, a court order issued during the probate proceedings is the fundamental legal instrument.

The Idaho Digital Assets Act, specifically Idaho Code § 68-501 et seq., defines a “digital asset” broadly to include a virtual currency, a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not redeemable in cash or in any other legal tender. It also encompasses a digital representation of rights or obligations, or a digital representation of another asset. Idaho Code § 68-502 clarifies that a digital asset is considered “property” for all purposes, including but not limited to, inheritance, gift, and taxation. When a custodian holds digital assets for another person, the Act establishes a framework for how those assets are treated in various legal contexts. Idaho Code § 68-507 addresses the rights of a person for whom a custodian holds a digital asset. It states that a custodian may convert a digital asset into a new digital asset or a new account at a new custodian, provided that the original digital asset is not materially altered or diminished in value and the conversion is made in a manner that is commercially reasonable and does not adversely affect the rights of the owner. The core principle is that the digital asset remains the property of the owner, and the custodian acts as a fiduciary in managing it. Therefore, if a custodian were to convert a cryptocurrency into a different, less volatile stablecoin as a measure to protect the owner’s principal value, this action, if done in a commercially reasonable manner and without materially altering the underlying value proposition of the owner’s holdings, would be permissible under the Act. The Act prioritizes the owner’s property rights and the custodian’s duty to act in the owner’s best interest, allowing for reasonable adjustments to preserve value.

Idaho Code § 64-101 defines a “digital asset” broadly, encompassing any right or interest in a computer-based file or program that is recognized by the law of Idaho as belonging to a particular person. This definition is crucial for determining how digital assets are treated in various legal contexts, including estate planning and property law. When considering a digital asset that is not readily transferable through a simple download or transfer of a private key, and instead requires specific contractual or platform-specific mechanisms for transfer, its classification and the method of transfer become paramount. Idaho’s approach to digital assets generally aligns with the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), which provides a framework for fiduciaries to access and manage digital assets. However, the specific nature of the asset and the terms of service of the platform governing it are critical. If a digital asset is tied to a unique online service and its transferability is governed by the terms of that service, which may not explicitly allow for direct transfer of ownership outside the platform’s established procedures, then the asset’s disposition is primarily dictated by those terms and the contractual relationship. Idaho law recognizes that digital assets can be subject to various forms of control and disposition, but the underlying contractual framework often dictates the practicalities of transfer. Therefore, an asset that is intrinsically linked to a service agreement and lacks a universally recognized, independent transfer mechanism would be managed according to that agreement.

Idaho Code Section 28-51-102(1) defines a digital asset as a representation of economic, proprietary, or contractual rights in a computer-based intangible asset that is held or controlled by a person or entity. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of digital property. The key elements are the representation of rights and the computer-based, intangible nature of the asset. Idaho Code Section 28-51-103(1) further clarifies that a digital asset is not created, stored, or deleted by the act of a consumer accessing or using a computer, computer program, or the internet. This distinction is crucial for differentiating digital assets from mere data or access credentials. In the scenario presented, the cryptocurrency is held in a digital wallet, represents economic value, and is an intangible asset controlled by the individual. Therefore, it clearly falls within the statutory definition of a digital asset under Idaho law. The fact that it is accessed via a private key does not remove it from this classification; rather, the private key is the mechanism for control. The other options are incorrect because they either misinterpret the definition of a digital asset, focus on irrelevant aspects like the physical location of servers (which is not a determining factor for digital assets), or incorrectly suggest that the intangible nature negates its status as an asset.

Idaho’s Digital Asset Law, particularly Chapter 13 of Title 15 of the Idaho Statutes, addresses the rights and obligations of various parties concerning digital assets. When a person dies, the law provides a framework for the personal representative of the estate to access and control these assets. Specifically, the law clarifies that a personal representative has the same rights as the decedent had during their lifetime to access, control, and transfer digital assets. This includes the ability to terminate or continue online accounts, access digital communications, and manage digital property, subject to any terms of service agreements of the online custodian. The law aims to balance the decedent’s intent and the estate’s needs with the privacy interests of third parties and the operational requirements of digital custodians. It is crucial to understand that the personal representative’s authority is derived from their legal appointment and the specific provisions of the Idaho Digital Asset Law, which supersedes conflicting terms of service agreements unless those agreements are permissible under the statute. The law does not grant the personal representative unfettered access to all digital information but rather to those assets that would legally pass through the estate.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, Section 15-3006 of the IUDDA addresses the authority of a person to act on behalf of a user’s digital assets. This section establishes that a user may grant authority to an “in-state fiduciary” to control their digital assets. An in-state fiduciary is defined by the act as a trustee, personal representative, conservator, agent, or other person appointed by a court or authorized by an agreement to act on behalf of the user. The key aspect here is the requirement for the fiduciary to be “in-state,” meaning they must be located or primarily conducting business within Idaho. This territorial limitation is crucial for establishing jurisdiction and ensuring the fiduciary is subject to Idaho’s legal framework. Therefore, a fiduciary acting under an Idaho-issued power of attorney, who is physically located and operating within Idaho, would be considered an in-state fiduciary and possess the authority to manage the user’s digital assets as permitted by the power of attorney, subject to the terms of the IUDDA.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and obligations concerning digital assets. When a user dies, their digital assets are passed according to their will or the laws of intestacy. Idaho Code Section 15-30-109 specifically addresses the rights of a personal representative to access a user’s digital assets. This section clarifies that a personal representative has the same rights as the user to access, control, or dispose of digital assets. This includes assets held by a custodian. The act differentiates between “content” and “digital accounts.” While a custodian may be required to provide a copy of the digital asset or a digital representation of it to the personal representative, they are generally not required to provide passwords or other access credentials that would grant the representative direct control over the account itself, unless specifically authorized by the user’s terms of service or a court order. The rationale behind this distinction is to protect the user’s privacy and security, as well as the custodian’s operational integrity. Therefore, a personal representative’s ability to access digital assets is primarily through obtaining copies or representations, not necessarily full account control, absent specific authorization.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDATA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, Chapter 31, and Chapter 32, governs the rights and obligations concerning digital assets. Specifically, Idaho Code § 15-30-102 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include an electronic record that the account holder has a right to enforce. This definition is crucial for determining what assets fall under the purview of the IUDATA. When considering a digital asset that is a cryptocurrency held in a custodial digital wallet, the key is the nature of the account holder’s right. A custodial wallet means a third party (the custodian) holds the private keys and controls access to the cryptocurrency. The account holder’s right is typically to instruct the custodian to transfer or manage the cryptocurrency. Therefore, such a cryptocurrency held in a custodial wallet constitutes a digital asset under the IUDATA. The act’s framework for accessing and controlling digital assets applies to these types of holdings, impacting estate planning and digital asset management. The distinction between a custodial and non-custodial wallet is significant, as the latter, where the user controls the private keys, might present different legal considerations regarding control and access, but the fundamental definition of a digital asset remains consistent for assets with enforceable rights.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between “consumer” and “custodian” digital assets. Custodians, such as cloud storage providers or social media platforms, are generally bound by their terms of service agreements when determining access to digital assets. The IUDDA grants a user the ability to grant access to their digital assets through an “online tool” provided by the custodian, or by a specific provision in their will or trust. If neither of these methods is utilized, the custodian is generally prohibited from disclosing the content of consumer digital assets to anyone other than the user or a person authorized by court order. However, for certain types of digital assets, like digital assets that are tangible property or that represent a right to tangible property, the general rules of estate administration apply, meaning they pass to the estate and are subject to the terms of the will or intestacy laws. The scenario describes a digital certificate representing ownership of a physical parcel of land in Idaho. This type of digital asset is not merely an electronic record of information but signifies a legal right to tangible property. Therefore, it falls under the purview of traditional estate law and is not solely governed by the IUDDA’s specific provisions for digital assets that are purely informational or contractual. The executor, as the legal representative of the estate, would have the authority to manage and distribute this asset according to the deceased’s will or Idaho’s intestacy laws, without needing a specific court order for digital asset access under the IUDDA, as it’s tied to tangible property.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, Chapter 31, and Chapter 32, governs the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, Idaho Code Section 15-30-107 addresses the authority of a fiduciary over a digital asset. This section establishes that a fiduciary with legal authority over a digital asset generally has the right to access, control, and manage that asset, subject to any terms of service of the digital asset custodian and any specific limitations imposed by the user’s account agreement or applicable law. The core principle is that legal authority granted to a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, extends to digital assets unless explicitly restricted. The IUDDA aims to provide a clear framework for dealing with digital assets in estate planning and administration, ensuring that fiduciaries can effectively manage these assets on behalf of beneficiaries or the deceased’s estate. This includes the ability to access digital accounts, transfer digital assets, or make decisions regarding their disposition, aligning with the fiduciary’s overarching duties. The act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the methods of access, but the general grant of authority to a fiduciary is a foundational element.

The Idaho Uniform Digital Assets Act (IUDDA), codified in Idaho Code Title 15, Chapter 30, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets upon a person’s death or incapacitation. Specifically, Idaho Code Section 15-30-117 outlines the procedures for custodians to grant access to digital assets. This section distinguishes between a user’s digital assets that have a tangible value (like cryptocurrency held in a wallet with a private key that can be transferred) and those that are merely records of the user’s online activity or digital content without inherent monetary value. For digital assets with a tangible value, a custodian must provide access to an authorized recipient upon presentation of a valid court order or the user’s will. For digital assets that are essentially records or content, the custodian may grant access if the user’s terms of service permit it, and the custodian has a policy allowing such access. The key distinction lies in whether the asset itself has a transferable or inheritable tangible value, or if it is merely a representation of the user’s online presence or data. The IUDDA aims to provide a framework for the orderly transfer and management of these assets, aligning with principles of estate planning and digital property rights. This contrasts with jurisdictions that might treat all digital assets as mere contractual rights governed solely by terms of service, or those that have not yet enacted specific legislation like the IUDDA. The Idaho law recognizes the unique nature of digital assets and seeks to balance the user’s intent, the rights of beneficiaries, and the operational policies of custodians.