The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 33, Chapter 94, governs digital assets. Specifically, MRSA §1401 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include “an electronic record of rights or interests in a virtual currency or other digital record that is capable of possession, ownership, or control.” This definition is crucial for determining what falls under the purview of Maine’s digital asset law. When considering the transfer of digital assets upon death, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Maine (MRSA Title 33, Chapter 94), outlines the procedures. Section 1403 of MRSA Title 33 states that a custodian of a digital asset shall comply with a user’s direction regarding the digital asset. If a user has not provided a specific direction, the law generally treats digital assets as property of the user’s estate, subject to distribution according to the user’s will or intestacy laws, unless the terms of service of the custodian restrict such transfer. However, the initial classification of what constitutes a digital asset under Maine law is paramount. A digital asset is not merely an electronic record; it represents rights or interests. Therefore, an electronic record that does not represent any discernible right or interest, such as a simple unassigned digital photograph or a generic text file without inherent value or ownership claim, would not typically be classified as a “digital asset” under MRSA §1401. The key is the existence of rights or interests associated with the electronic record.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (ME UETA), found in 11 M.R.S. Chapter 111, governs the validity of electronic records and signatures in Maine. Specifically, Section 7001 addresses the enforceability of electronic signatures. For an electronic signature to be legally effective under ME UETA, it must be attributable to the person purporting to sign. This attribution requires that a process exists that links the signature to the signer and that the process is commercially reasonable in the context of the transaction. The Maine statute does not mandate specific technological standards for all electronic signatures but rather focuses on the outcome of attribution and intent. Therefore, an electronic signature is generally considered valid if it can be reliably associated with the individual who intended to sign, and this association is supported by a commercially reasonable method. The concept of “commercially reasonable” is context-dependent and considers factors such as the nature of the transaction, the parties involved, and the prevailing industry practices for electronic authentication. The Maine statute, similar to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act upon which it is based, prioritizes the functional equivalence of electronic signatures to traditional wet ink signatures, provided the underlying process ensures authenticity and intent. This approach allows for flexibility in adopting new technologies while maintaining legal certainty.

The Maine Uniform Digital Assets Act (MUDA), codified in 17-A M.R.S. Chapter 121, addresses the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, the Act distinguishes between the rights of a user and the rights of a content provider. A user’s digital assets include digital content that the user has created, purchased, or otherwise has a legal right to access or possess. A content provider is defined as a person who provides a digital service to a user, such as a social media platform or an online storage service. The Act generally grants the user’s representative (e.g., executor or administrator) the right to access, control, or dispose of the user’s digital assets, subject to the terms of service of the content provider and the user’s own instructions. However, the Act also recognizes that content providers may have legitimate interests in protecting their systems and data, which can lead to limitations on access. For instance, certain digital assets, like personal correspondence or sensitive financial data, might be treated differently than readily transferable digital goods. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent, as expressed in their will or other estate planning documents, but it also balances this with the contractual agreements between the user and the content provider. Maine law, like many other states adopting similar legislation, aims to provide a clear framework for managing digital estates, preventing digital assets from becoming lost or inaccessible after the owner’s death. The key is to understand the interplay between the user’s rights, the representative’s authority, and the content provider’s terms of service as outlined in the MUDA.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 33, Chapter 96, specifically the Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFDAA), governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. The Act distinguishes between digital assets that are stored by a service provider and those that are not. For digital assets that are not stored by a service provider, such as personal cryptocurrency wallets or private blockchain entries, the fiduciary’s access is generally governed by the user’s intent as expressed in a digital asset control document or, in its absence, by the terms of service of the platform or the applicable law. However, the MRSA Title 33, Chapter 96, Section 1203 explicitly states that a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets does not grant the fiduciary any ownership interest in those assets. Ownership is determined by separate legal principles. Therefore, while a fiduciary might be granted access to manage or distribute digital assets according to a will or trust, they do not automatically become the owner of those assets. Ownership rights are distinct from access rights. This distinction is crucial in understanding the scope of a fiduciary’s power under Maine law concerning digital assets.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 16, Chapter 111, addresses digital assets. Specifically, Section 1111 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include any electronically stored information that a person has a right to create, possess, buy, sell, or exchange. This definition is crucial for determining the scope of the law. The statute then outlines how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, can access, control, or terminate a digital asset account. Section 1113 grants a fiduciary the power to provide the service provider with a copy of the user’s death certificate and proof of the fiduciary’s authority, such as letters testamentary or a trust instrument. Upon receiving this documentation, the service provider must provide the fiduciary with access to the digital asset. However, the statute also emphasizes the service provider’s ability to refuse access if it conflicts with federal law or the service provider’s terms of service, provided those terms are not unconscionable. In this scenario, the service provider’s refusal based on a clause in their terms of service that is potentially unconscionable, and without a valid legal basis tied to federal law or a universally accepted privacy standard, would be a violation of the spirit and likely the letter of MRSA Title 16, Chapter 111. The law aims to balance the decedent’s intent and the fiduciary’s need for access with the service provider’s legitimate interests and user privacy, but it prioritizes fiduciary access when properly documented, unless overridden by a strong legal or contractual justification that is not merely a unilateral assertion of a potentially unfair term. The core principle is that a fiduciary, armed with the correct documentation, should be able to manage the digital assets of the deceased, similar to tangible property, unless specific legal impediments exist.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA), Title 33, Chapter 57, specifically addresses the treatment of digital assets upon death. Section 1303-102 defines a “custodian” as a person that controls, holds, or otherwise has custody of a digital asset on behalf of another person. Section 1303-103 outlines the principal’s right to grant access to digital assets to a fiduciary or designated person. Crucially, Section 1303-104, titled “Custodians’ Duty to Provide Digital Assets,” states that a custodian shall comply with a request for disclosure of digital assets under Chapter 57. This compliance is mandated by a court order or by the user’s written direction. The statute emphasizes that a custodian may not have a policy that prohibits disclosure. Therefore, if the user has provided written consent, the custodian is legally obligated to provide access to the digital assets, overriding any internal policy that might attempt to restrict such access. This ensures that a user’s intent regarding their digital assets is honored after their death or incapacitation, aligning with the broader goals of estate planning and digital legacy management in Maine. The law aims to balance the user’s control over their digital property with the custodian’s operational and security considerations, but ultimately prioritizes the user’s expressed wishes.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Maine, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets upon their incapacitation or death. Maine’s version of UFADAA, found in Title 18-C of the Maine Revised Statutes, outlines a hierarchy of methods for granting access. The most direct and preferred method is through a digital asset power of attorney, which is a specific clause within a broader power of attorney document. This clause explicitly grants the fiduciary the authority to manage digital assets. If such a provision is absent, the fiduciary may be able to access digital assets via a will, provided the will specifically grants authority over digital assets and the custodian’s terms of service permit it. However, the Act prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. Custodians are generally obligated to comply with a valid digital asset power of attorney or a court order. In the absence of a digital asset power of attorney, and if the user’s terms of service do not prohibit it, a will may serve as authorization. The Act also distinguishes between different types of digital assets, with some custodians having more latitude to deny access based on their terms of service, particularly for content that is personal or proprietary. The core principle is to respect the user’s intent as expressed through their estate planning documents and, secondarily, through their agreement with the digital asset custodian. Therefore, the presence of a specific digital asset power of attorney provision is the most robust method for ensuring a fiduciary’s access.

Maine’s Digital Asset Law, enacted through LD 1571 (now codified in Title 18-B of the Maine Revised Statutes), adopts a flexible approach to digital asset custodianship and distribution. Specifically, regarding a digital asset custodian’s duty to a digital asset owner, the law prioritizes the terms of the governing instrument and any agreements between the custodian and the owner. Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-B, Chapter 5, Section 501(1) explicitly states that a custodian shall act in accordance with the terms of the electronic arrangement. This means that if a digital asset owner has a specific agreement with their custodian outlining how their digital assets should be managed or distributed upon their incapacity or death, the custodian is bound by those terms. This contractual agreement supersedes general default rules unless the governing instrument itself specifies otherwise. The law aims to provide clarity and predictability for individuals managing digital assets, ensuring that their intentions are respected through their chosen custodian’s actions. The focus is on the explicit contractual relationship and the specific instructions provided within the digital asset arrangement itself, rather than imposing a single, uniform standard of care that might contradict the owner’s expressed wishes.

Maine’s Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as codified in 33 M.R.S. § 1251 et seq., addresses how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative of an estate, can access a deceased user’s digital assets. The Act distinguishes between types of digital assets and the user’s intent. For content that is not a “record of electronic communication” or “electronic financial record,” a fiduciary can generally access it if the user has granted consent in the user’s terms of service agreement or by a separate document. However, for “records of electronic communication” (like emails or instant messages) and “electronic financial records” (like bank account statements), the Act requires specific consent. Without explicit consent in the terms of service or a separate document, a fiduciary generally cannot access these specific categories of digital assets. The Act prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their online agreements and any specific directives they leave. Therefore, if a user’s terms of service for their cloud storage explicitly permits access by their designated executor for the purpose of estate administration, the executor can access those files. If the terms of service are silent or restrictive, and no separate consent document exists, access to certain sensitive digital assets, particularly communications, may be denied.

The Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFDAA), codified in 27 M.R.S. § 1001 et seq., governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets after their death or incapacitation. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between a user’s “digital assets” and their “online accounts.” Digital assets, as defined by the act, are electronic records that the user has a right to access or possess. This can include cryptocurrencies held in a digital wallet, digital photographs, or electronic documents. Online accounts, on the other hand, refer to the services or platforms that host these digital assets, such as a cryptocurrency exchange or a cloud storage provider. Under Maine’s MUFDAA, a fiduciary’s right to access digital assets is generally contingent upon the user’s intent as expressed in a “digital-assets control document.” This document can be a will, a trust, or a specific digital-assets power of attorney. Crucially, the Act specifies that if a user has not provided explicit instructions for a particular online account or digital asset in a control document, a fiduciary may be granted access to the content of the account but not necessarily to the account itself, unless the service provider’s terms of service permit it. However, the Act also clarifies that a fiduciary cannot be granted access to a digital asset if the terms of service of the online account provider prohibit such access, even if the user has a control document. The Act prioritizes the terms of service of online providers unless they are overridden by specific provisions within the control document that expressly grant the fiduciary access to the account itself. In this scenario, while the cryptocurrency itself is a digital asset, the platform on which it is held is an online account. Maine law, similar to the Uniform Act, allows a fiduciary to access the content of an online account, which includes the cryptocurrency, unless the terms of service explicitly prohibit it. The key is the distinction between accessing the digital asset (the cryptocurrency) and accessing the online account (the exchange platform). Maine law permits access to the digital asset itself, which is the cryptocurrency, through the online account, provided the terms of service do not explicitly forbid it. Therefore, the executor can access the cryptocurrency.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (ME UETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. Chapter 11, governs the legal recognition of electronic records and signatures. While ME UETA primarily addresses the validity of electronic transactions, it does not explicitly define or regulate “digital assets” in the same comprehensive manner as some other states that have adopted specific digital asset legislation, such as the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA). Maine has not enacted UFADAA. Therefore, when considering the disposition of digital assets upon death, particularly those held in accounts that might be considered financial accounts or general intangible property, Maine law relies on existing probate statutes and general contract principles. If a digital asset is deemed a “general intangible” under Maine’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), its transfer might be subject to UCC Article 9 provisions regarding secured transactions and the perfection of security interests. However, the unique nature of many digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies or non-fungible tokens (NFTs), presents challenges for traditional legal frameworks. The Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-A, the Probate Code, governs the administration of estates. Without specific legislation addressing digital assets directly, the executor or administrator of an estate would typically rely on the terms of the deceased’s will or applicable intestacy laws. If the will specifically bequeaths digital assets, the executor must attempt to access and transfer them according to the terms of service of the platform where they are held. If the digital asset is considered property, it would pass as part of the residue of the estate or as specifically devised property. The lack of explicit digital asset legislation in Maine means that the classification and transfer of these assets often depend on how they are characterized under existing property and contract law, and the cooperation of the digital asset custodian.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (MUETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. Chapter 12, governs the legal recognition of electronic records and signatures in Maine. While MUETA generally validates electronic transactions, it contains specific exceptions. One such exception pertains to the creation and execution of wills, trusts, and testamentary trusts. Maine law, like many other jurisdictions, requires these documents to be executed with specific formalities, typically involving physical signatures and witnesses, to ensure authenticity and prevent fraud. The Maine Revised Statutes, Title 18-B, specifically addresses the execution of wills, requiring them to be signed by the testator or in the testator’s name by some other person in the testator’s presence and under the testator’s direction, and to be signed by at least two credible witnesses in the testator’s presence. This statutory requirement for physical presence and signatures for wills is not superseded by the general provisions of MUETA, which primarily focuses on commercial transactions and other agreements where the intent is to facilitate electronic commerce. Therefore, a digital signature, while legally binding for many contracts under MUETA, would not suffice for the valid execution of a will in Maine. The concept of “digital asset” under Maine law, as potentially defined in broader contexts or future legislation, would not alter this specific requirement for testamentary instruments. The core principle is that certain legal acts, due to their gravity and the potential for undue influence or error, are preserved with traditional execution formalities.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (ME UETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. Chapter 140, governs the legal recognition of electronic records and signatures. Specifically, 10 M.R.S. § 1402 defines a “digital asset” as “an electronic record that is created, stored, or transmitted by the user and that has intrinsic value for the user.” This definition is broad and encompasses a wide range of digital property. The key is that the asset must be electronic, created, stored, or transmitted by the user, and possess intrinsic value to that user. In the scenario presented, the encrypted private key for a cryptocurrency wallet, stored on a USB drive, fits this description. The private key is an electronic record. It is created and stored by Elara. Its intrinsic value lies in its ability to control and access her cryptocurrency holdings, which are themselves digital assets. Therefore, under Maine law, the encrypted private key itself constitutes a digital asset.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Maine, specifically addresses how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative or trustee, can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets upon their incapacitation or death. Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-A, Chapter 5, Part 10, which governs this area, outlines a hierarchical approach to granting access. Section 5-1008 of the Maine Revised Statutes dictates that a fiduciary can access digital assets by providing the custodian with a valid court order or a valid power of attorney that specifically grants digital asset access. If the digital asset owner has not provided explicit instructions or a power of attorney, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of the governing instrument (like a will or trust) and the law. However, the law prioritizes the user’s intent and privacy. A custodian may deny access if the terms of service or the user’s online tool prohibit disclosure. The act also distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the level of access granted. For instance, access to a digital asset that is essentially a record of communication, like emails, might be more restricted than access to a digital asset that is a tangible digital property. The key is that the fiduciary must have legal authority and the custodian must be able to verify this authority, often through specific documentation, and comply with the user’s expressed wishes or the terms of service. In this scenario, without a specific digital asset power of attorney or a court order explicitly authorizing access to the deceased’s social media accounts, the personal representative’s general authority under a will does not automatically grant them the right to access these specific digital assets. Maine law, mirroring the UFADAA, emphasizes the need for specific authorization for sensitive digital content. Therefore, the personal representative cannot unilaterally access the deceased’s social media content solely based on their appointment as personal representative.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFAA), as adopted and modified in Maine, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. Under Maine law, a user can grant access to their digital assets through a “digital assets power of attorney” or by using an “online tool” provided by the digital asset custodian. If neither of these methods is employed, the fiduciary’s access is governed by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian and, in the absence of specific terms, by court order. The Act prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. A general power of attorney, without specific reference to digital assets or a digital assets power of attorney, may not be sufficient to grant access to digital assets under Maine’s UFAA. The law aims to balance the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage assets. Therefore, the most direct and legally sound method for a fiduciary to gain access to digital assets, absent a specific online tool, is through a properly executed digital assets power of attorney that complies with Maine’s statutory requirements. This document explicitly grants the fiduciary the authority to manage digital assets, overriding the default provisions that might otherwise restrict access or require court intervention.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 33, Chapter 76, specifically addresses the treatment of digital assets upon a person’s death. This chapter, enacted in alignment with the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), provides a framework for how digital assets are handled by personal representatives or other fiduciaries. The law distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the methods by which a user can grant access. A user can grant access to their digital assets to a fiduciary through an online tool provided by a custodian or through a will or other record. However, the law also specifies that a user’s direct grant of access to a fiduciary is generally effective and has priority over provisions in a will or other record, unless the will or record explicitly states otherwise and is executed after the grant of access through the custodian’s tool. This hierarchy is crucial for ensuring that a person’s expressed intent regarding their digital legacy is honored. In this scenario, the online tool provided by the cryptocurrency exchange, which is a custodian, constitutes a direct grant of access. The subsequent will, while attempting to direct the disposition of these assets, does not explicitly revoke or override the prior grant made through the custodian’s platform. Therefore, the terms of the online tool, as a direct grant, would govern the fiduciary’s access to the digital assets.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Maine, specifically addresses the rights of fiduciaries to access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Maine’s version of UFADAA, found in Title 18-C of the Maine Revised Statutes, outlines a tiered approach to granting access. When an estate plan does not explicitly grant a fiduciary access to digital assets, or if the terms of service of the digital asset custodian conflict with the estate plan, the law provides default rules. Specifically, 18-C M.R.S. § 10105(b) dictates that a fiduciary’s right to access a digital asset is determined by the terms of service of the custodian, unless the user has provided a separate, explicit authorization. However, the law also prioritizes a specific type of authorization over conflicting terms of service. The statute distinguishes between a “tool” provided by a custodian and a “separate, explicit authorization.” A separate, explicit authorization, such as a specific provision in a will or a power of attorney that clearly directs access to digital assets, generally overrides the custodian’s terms of service. The custodian’s terms of service are primarily relevant when there is no such explicit authorization or when the authorization is ambiguous regarding digital assets. Therefore, while a custodian’s terms of service are a factor, a well-drafted, explicit directive within an estate planning document takes precedence in granting a fiduciary access to digital assets in Maine.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Maine, specifically addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a digital asset owner’s digital assets after their death or incapacitation. Maine’s version of UFADAA, found in Title 18-A of the Maine Revised Statutes, Chapter 10, distinguishes between custodians who are subject to the Act and those who are not. A key aspect is the tiered approach to granting access. First, the fiduciary’s authority is determined by the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. If the terms of service allow the fiduciary access, that is the primary method. If the terms of service are silent or prohibit access, the fiduciary may still gain access if the user has provided a digital asset control document. Such a document is specifically defined as a record that grants a fiduciary the right to access, modify, or delete the user’s digital assets. This document must be authenticated by the user and clearly identify the fiduciary and the digital assets to which the fiduciary is granted access. If neither the terms of service nor a digital asset control document provides the necessary authority, the fiduciary may seek a court order. However, the statute prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through their own actions and documentation over a generic court order that might not reflect specific wishes. Therefore, a digital asset control document, when properly executed and authenticated, serves as a direct authorization that overrides a custodian’s default policies, provided those policies do not explicitly prohibit such access in a manner that Maine law deems absolute. The question hinges on the hierarchy of authorization under Maine’s UFADAA, where a user-created control document holds significant weight.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 13-C, Section 102, defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records that an individual has a right or interest in. This definition encompasses a wide range of digital property. When considering the transfer of digital assets upon death, Maine law, particularly as informed by the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) as adopted in Maine, outlines specific procedures. The primary method for designating a recipient of digital assets is through a “digital asset control document,” which is essentially a will or trust that specifically enumerates the digital assets and their intended beneficiaries. If no such document exists, or if it does not adequately address digital assets, the personal representative of the estate may be able to access certain digital assets, but this is subject to limitations and the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. A conservator, appointed by a court to manage the affairs of an incapacitated person, also has specific rights and responsibilities regarding digital assets, as outlined in Maine law. However, the most direct and legally robust method for ensuring the intended distribution of digital assets is through explicit testamentary provisions. Therefore, a specific provision within a will or trust is the most effective mechanism for transferring digital assets.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 33, Chapter 105, concerning digital assets, specifically addresses the rights and responsibilities of custodians and beneficiaries. Section 1052, subsection 2, outlines the requirements for a custodian to transfer a digital asset to a beneficiary. This section states that a custodian shall transfer a digital asset to the beneficiary entitled to it under a valid instruction from the user. A valid instruction is defined as a legally effective record that grants the custodian authority to transfer the digital asset. In this scenario, Elara’s instruction to transfer her cryptocurrency to her brother, Finn, via her digital asset custodian, Cryptosafe Inc., constitutes a legally effective record. Cryptosafe Inc. is obligated to follow this instruction. The Maine Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (MUFADAA), as codified in MRSA Title 33, Chapter 105, governs these types of transactions. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in their instructions. Therefore, Cryptosafe Inc. must comply with Elara’s instruction to transfer the digital asset to Finn. The question tests the understanding of the custodian’s duty under Maine law when presented with a valid user instruction for digital asset distribution.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (ME UETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. § 1381 et seq., governs the enforceability of electronic records and signatures in transactions. Maine’s approach to digital assets is further informed by its adoption of the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as found in 18-C M.R.S. § 10101 et seq. This latter act specifically addresses how a fiduciary, such as a personal representative of an estate, can access and manage a decedent’s digital assets. Under UFADAA, a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset is determined by the user’s online tool, the terms of service of the digital asset custodian, and, crucially, a valid will or other record that specifically grants such access. If a user has not provided specific instructions through an online tool or a will, the fiduciary’s access is generally limited to what is permissible under Maine law, which often means only the content that the user could have accessed. The law distinguishes between “content” (like emails or documents) and “catalog” (like a list of files or account balances). Maine law, through UFADAA, prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through specific provisions for digital asset access. Without a specific directive in a will or an online tool, a personal representative’s ability to access the entirety of a decedent’s digital assets, including communications, is restricted, aligning with privacy considerations and the terms of service of digital asset custodians. Therefore, the personal representative would have access to the catalog of digital assets but not necessarily the content of communications unless explicitly permitted.

The Maine Revised Statutes Title 10, Chapter 701, Uniform Fiduciary Powers, specifically addresses the powers of fiduciaries concerning digital assets. Section 701-102 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic records in which a user has a right or interest. Section 701-104 outlines the general fiduciary duty, which includes the duty of loyalty and care. When a fiduciary is managing digital assets, they must act with the same care and skill as a prudent person acting in a like capacity and on like matters. This involves understanding the nature of the digital assets, the terms of service of the platforms holding them, and the user’s intent. The Maine law, in line with the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), grants fiduciaries the ability to access, manage, and control digital assets, subject to the terms of service of the custodian and the user’s instructions. Therefore, a fiduciary must navigate the legal framework and the specific terms of service of digital asset custodians to fulfill their duties. This includes understanding the scope of access granted by the law and any limitations imposed by the custodian’s policies, ensuring that their actions are consistent with the deceased user’s wishes and the principles of prudent management. The fiduciary’s responsibility extends to understanding the security protocols and potential liabilities associated with managing these assets.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 33, Chapter 76, concerning digital assets, particularly Section 1203, outlines the rights and responsibilities concerning the control and disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. Specifically, Section 1203(1) states that a fiduciary may refuse to grant access to a digital asset or a service provider account if the fiduciary reasonably believes that granting access would expose the fiduciary to liability. This provision is crucial for fiduciaries managing digital estates in Maine, as it provides a legal basis to protect themselves from potential legal repercussions arising from the handling of sensitive or proprietary digital information. The Maine law, influenced by the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFUADAA), aims to balance the deceased’s intent with the practical and legal considerations faced by those administering the estate. The statute allows for a fiduciary to act cautiously when the terms of service of a digital asset provider or the nature of the asset itself might create unforeseen liabilities, such as data privacy violations or unauthorized disclosures. This protective clause is a key element in ensuring that fiduciaries can effectively and safely manage digital assets within the legal framework of Maine.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UUPAA) as adopted in Maine, specifically under 18-C M.R.S. § 1001 et seq., governs how a fiduciary can access a user’s digital assets. Section 1005 outlines the types of digital assets and the methods by which a fiduciary can obtain access. When a user dies, a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can gain access to digital assets if the user has provided consent in a digital asset control document, a will, or by direct court order. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit intent. In the absence of a digital asset control document, the fiduciary’s access is determined by the terms of service of the online platform where the assets are stored. However, Maine law, like many UUPAA enactments, grants a fiduciary access to digital assets held by a custodian if the user has not provided contrary instructions. The key is that the custodian must comply with the law. If the custodian has a policy that restricts access, and the user has not provided explicit consent to that restriction in a control document, the fiduciary’s statutory right under UUPAA generally prevails. Therefore, if Ms. Gable, as executor, has a court order and the digital asset custodian in Maine has no specific terms of service that explicitly prohibit executor access in such a scenario, the custodian is legally obligated to provide access. The custodian’s internal policy, if not aligned with the statutory framework and user intent, would not supersede the law.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) Title 33, Chapter 77, which governs digital assets, defines a digital asset broadly. Specifically, MRSA § 1201(4) defines a “digital asset” as “an electronic record that is created, stored, or transmitted using computer hardware, software, or telecommunications and that the owner has the right to use, control, or dispose of, but does not include an electronic record of the issuer that the issuer has the right to control or dispose of.” This definition encompasses a wide range of digital property. MRSA § 1202 further clarifies that a digital asset can be a virtual currency, a non-fungible token, or any other intangible digital property. The statute aims to provide a framework for the ownership, transfer, and disposition of digital assets, aligning with broader trends in digital property law. The core principle is the owner’s right to use, control, or dispose of the asset, distinguishing it from mere data or records controlled solely by an issuer. Therefore, an email containing a cryptographic key to a digital wallet would qualify as a digital asset under this broad definition, as it represents the owner’s control over that digital asset.

The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Title 33, Chapter 102, specifically the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFDAA), governs how a fiduciary can access a person’s digital assets. Section 1027, subsection 1, outlines the general rule for custodians. It states that a custodian shall grant a fiduciary access to the digital assets of a user if the fiduciary provides the custodian with a valid court order or a power of attorney that expressly grants the fiduciary authority to access the user’s digital assets. The statute emphasizes that a custodian may not deny access based on the fact that the digital asset is stored in a location controlled by the custodian or that the custodian has a business relationship with the user. The Maine UFDAA, like its counterparts in other states, aims to provide a clear legal framework for managing digital assets upon death or incapacitation, balancing the user’s privacy with the fiduciary’s need to manage the estate. The key is the existence of a proper legal instrument authorizing access, such as a court order or a specific power of attorney.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (MUETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. Chapter 101, governs the validity of electronic records and signatures in Maine. Specifically, Section 103 states that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form. Furthermore, Section 104 establishes that if a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies that requirement. Section 105 clarifies that if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies that requirement, provided the electronic signature is attributable to the person and the person intended to sign. The Maine Revised Statutes Annotated (MRSA) provides the framework for digital asset transactions. While Maine does not have a specific “Digital Assets Law” as a standalone chapter, the principles of MUETA, along with other relevant statutes concerning property, trusts, and estates, are applied to digital assets. For instance, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA) has been adopted in many states, including Maine (though its specific implementation details might be found within broader probate or trust statutes, often referencing the Uniform Act). This Act, as adapted in Maine, allows for the distribution of digital assets upon a user’s death. The core concept is that digital assets are treated as property, and their transfer and management are subject to existing legal frameworks, adapted for the electronic medium. Therefore, a digital signature on an electronic record, if properly authenticated and intended to bind the party, is legally valid under Maine law for transactions involving digital assets, just as it would be for any other contractual or property-related matter. The question hinges on the general enforceability of electronic signatures in Maine as per MUETA, which is the foundational principle for all electronic transactions, including those involving digital assets. The concept of “control” over a digital asset, as defined in the context of UFADAA, is also relevant, but the question focuses on the *form* of the signature used to effectuate a transfer or agreement related to such assets.

The Maine Uniform Digital Assets Act (MUDA), enacted in Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-B, addresses the rights and responsibilities concerning digital assets. Specifically, Section 18-B § 302 outlines the rules for accessing digital assets upon a user’s death. When a user dies, a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, can request access to the user’s digital assets from a digital asset custodian. The custodian must provide access if the user’s intent regarding the disposition of digital assets is clear in the user’s online account terms of service or a separate document that specifically directs the custodian to grant access to the fiduciary. If the user’s intent is not clear from these sources, the custodian may deny the request. However, a court order directing the custodian to grant access to the fiduciary will compel the custodian to comply. This court order is a definitive legal mechanism to override the custodian’s discretion when the user’s intent is ambiguous or unstated in the digital account’s terms. Therefore, the most reliable method for a fiduciary to gain access to digital assets when the user’s intent is not explicitly stated in their online account terms is through a court order.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Maine, provides a framework for fiduciaries to access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. Under Maine law, a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can generally access digital assets if the user has granted access through an “online tool” provided by the custodian or by a “digital asset power of attorney.” The Maine Revised Statutes Title 18-C, Chapter 5, Section 5-1001 et seq., governs this area. The law distinguishes between content that is merely stored on a server (like files) and content that is a “record of the user’s activities” (like social media posts). For content that is a record of the user’s activities, specific provisions apply. A fiduciary can typically access these records if the user has granted permission. If no explicit permission is granted via an online tool or a digital asset power of attorney, and the digital asset is not a “record of the user’s activities,” a fiduciary might be able to access it by court order. However, the question specifies a “digital asset power of attorney” explicitly granting access. This direct grant of authority overrides the need for a court order for content that would otherwise require it, and it also bypasses the need to rely on an online tool if such a tool was not used or is insufficient. Therefore, the fiduciary’s access is predicated on the existence and validity of this power of attorney. The key is that the power of attorney is the instrument that allows the fiduciary to act on behalf of the deceased user, superseding other potential barriers to access, provided it covers the specific digital assets in question.

The Maine Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (MUETA), codified at 10 M.R.S. Chapter 140, governs the legal recognition of electronic records and signatures in Maine. When a digital asset is transferred, the validity of the transfer often hinges on whether the electronic signature used meets the requirements of the MUETA. Specifically, Section 140-103 of the MUETA outlines the criteria for an electronic signature to be legally effective. An electronic signature is defined as an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record. The key here is the intent to be bound by the record. While the MUETA does not mandate specific technologies, it does require that the signature be attributable to the person, that it demonstrate the person’s intent to sign, and that the record be retained in a manner that accurately reflects the original. Therefore, a digital signature that uses cryptographic methods to ensure authenticity and integrity, and is demonstrably linked to the user’s intent to approve a digital asset transfer agreement, would satisfy these requirements. This contrasts with a simple clickwrap agreement without further authentication, which might lack the necessary intent or attribution for a high-value digital asset transfer.