The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses the rights of fiduciaries to access a user’s digital assets. ORS 106.210(1) establishes that a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset of a user is governed by the terms of service of a digital asset custodian. This means that the custodian’s agreement with the user is the primary determinant of whether a fiduciary can access the assets. If the terms of service grant access, the fiduciary can proceed. If they prohibit access, the fiduciary generally cannot access the assets unless a court order or specific statutory exception applies. Oregon’s adoption of UFADAA aims to provide a framework for this access, but it explicitly defers to the custodian’s terms of service as the initial gatekeeper. This approach balances the user’s intent for privacy with the need for fiduciaries to manage assets upon incapacitation or death. The Oregon legislature’s intent was to create a clear hierarchy of control, with the custodian’s agreement taking precedence over general fiduciary powers unless otherwise specified by law or court.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 107, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a deceased user’s digital assets. ORS 107.835 outlines the general rule that a fiduciary may access the content of an electronic communication of the decedent. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to limitations and specific procedures. The act distinguishes between different types of digital assets and the nature of access required. For instance, access to certain types of sensitive personal communications might be more restricted than access to general digital assets like online accounts for estate administration. The key principle is balancing the fiduciary’s need to manage the estate with the privacy rights of the deceased user and third parties involved in communications. The act provides a framework for custodians to respond to fiduciary requests, specifying acceptable forms of authorization and the timeframe for response. It also clarifies that a fiduciary’s authority is derived from the user’s intent, as expressed through a will, trust, power of attorney, or the OUFADA itself. The statute prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions regarding digital asset disposition. The intent behind the OUFADA is to provide clear legal pathways for fiduciaries to manage digital assets, preventing situations where valuable or necessary digital information is inaccessible due to outdated legal frameworks.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADAA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 107, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access digital assets. A critical aspect of this law is the distinction between the fiduciary’s right to access and the terms of service of the digital asset custodian. ORS 107.825 establishes that a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset is governed by the OUFADAA and the user’s online tool or trust, not solely by the custodian’s terms of service. While custodians may have their own policies, these cannot override the statutory rights granted to fiduciaries under the OUFADAA when properly established. The law prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed through a valid online tool or trust document. Therefore, even if a custodian’s terms of service generally restrict access, a properly authorized fiduciary acting under the OUFADAA can still gain access if the user has utilized the specific mechanisms provided by the law to grant such access. This principle ensures that a person’s digital legacy can be managed according to their wishes, even if those wishes conflict with a custodian’s standard operating procedures, provided the proper legal steps have been followed. The law aims to balance the rights of digital asset owners, their fiduciaries, and the service providers.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 709, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. ORS 709.520(1) states that a fiduciary may request access to the digital assets of the user. The law then outlines a hierarchy of methods for granting this access. If the user has not provided explicit instructions, the fiduciary must then rely on the terms of service of the online custodian. If the terms of service do not provide for access, the fiduciary may petition a court for access. ORS 709.540(1) establishes that a fiduciary may be granted access if the user has not provided instructions and the terms of service do not grant access. The court’s decision is based on whether granting access is consistent with the user’s reasonable expectation of privacy and other relevant factors. Therefore, the primary recourse for a fiduciary when the user has not provided specific instructions is to consult the online custodian’s terms of service. If those terms do not permit access, the next step is to seek a court order.

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 105, specifically sections dealing with digital assets and their disposition, governs how digital assets are handled upon a person’s death. When a person dies, their digital assets are subject to the terms of their will or, if no will exists, to the laws of intestacy. ORS 105.670 defines a digital asset as an electronic record in which the user has a right of ownership. ORS 105.672 outlines the procedure for custodians to provide access to digital assets. The key principle is that the terms of the user’s online service agreement with the custodian will dictate access, unless a specific legal instrument like a will or power of attorney explicitly grants access or directs disposition. In the absence of such provisions, or if the custodian’s terms of service prohibit it, the executor or administrator of the estate may not automatically gain access. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Oregon, generally prioritizes the user’s intent as expressed in a “digital-asset-specific power of attorney” or a will that specifically refers to digital assets. However, if the user’s online service agreement explicitly prohibits the disclosure of digital assets to a fiduciary, that prohibition generally controls, unless the user has taken specific steps to override it through a properly executed document. Therefore, the online service agreement’s terms are a primary determinant of access in the absence of specific estate planning documents that clearly address digital assets.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. ORS 106.205(1) establishes that a fiduciary’s authority to access a user’s digital assets is governed by the terms of service of the online service provider. This means that the digital asset owner’s intent, as expressed through the terms of service they agreed to, is paramount. If the terms of service grant access to a fiduciary, then the fiduciary can access the assets. If the terms of service prohibit or do not explicitly grant access, the fiduciary generally cannot access them, even with a court order, unless specific statutory exceptions apply or the terms of service are deemed unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. The act prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions and the service provider’s policies. A court order might be necessary to compel a service provider to comply with the terms of service or to interpret ambiguous terms, but it does not supersede the service provider’s established terms of service in granting access if those terms are otherwise valid. The consent of other users of a shared digital asset account is a separate consideration, but the primary gateway for fiduciary access is the terms of service.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in ORS Chapter 107, governs how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. When a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, seeks access to a decedent’s digital assets, the Act outlines a hierarchical framework for determining the scope of access. The Act distinguishes between “custodians” (entities that hold digital assets) and “users” (the individuals who own or control the assets). OUFADA prioritizes a user’s explicit instructions regarding digital asset access. If a user has provided a “digital assets power of attorney” or a “digital assets will,” these documents are paramount. In the absence of such specific instructions, the Act looks to the user’s terms of service with the custodian. If the terms of service do not grant access or are silent, the Act then refers to the fiduciary’s authority under other legal instruments like a will or trust, and finally, to Oregon law governing the fiduciary’s role. Specifically, ORS 107.835(1) states that a fiduciary may be granted access to a user’s digital assets, but the scope of that access is determined by the terms of service governing the account or by the user’s explicit consent. Without explicit consent or a provision in the terms of service allowing such access, a fiduciary’s general authority under a will or trust does not automatically grant them access to all digital assets, especially those that are highly personal or sensitive. The Act aims to balance the fiduciary’s need to manage an estate with the user’s privacy rights. Therefore, a general power of attorney, while granting broad authority over property, may not implicitly extend to digital assets unless the digital assets are specifically enumerated or the power of attorney is a “digital assets power of attorney” as defined by the Act.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.640 addresses the disposition of digital assets by a personal representative. This statute clarifies how a personal representative, appointed under Oregon’s Uniform Probate Code, can access and manage a deceased individual’s digital assets. The key principle is that the personal representative has the authority to access, control, and dispose of digital assets in the same manner as the decedent could have, provided that the terms of service of the digital asset custodian do not prohibit such access. This includes digital assets held in online accounts, cloud storage, and other digital formats. The statute aims to provide a legal framework for the transfer and management of these assets, which are increasingly significant in modern estates. It is important to note that while the statute grants authority, it does not override specific contractual agreements between the decedent and the digital asset custodian. The personal representative must act in accordance with the decedent’s wishes as expressed in their will or other estate planning documents, and also adhere to the terms of service governing the digital assets. The statute is designed to ensure that digital assets are treated as property that can be passed on and managed within the probate process, similar to tangible property.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. ORS 106.210 outlines the general principles. When a user creates a digital asset account, they may grant a fiduciary (like an executor or trustee) access either through the terms of service of the digital asset provider or by using a specific tool provided by the user’s custodian. If the user has not provided explicit consent to the digital asset provider for fiduciary access, the fiduciary’s authority is generally determined by the terms of service of the digital asset provider. However, if the user has executed an electronic trust or will that specifically grants authority over digital assets, and the fiduciary provides a copy of this document to the custodian, the custodian must grant access, unless the user’s terms of service explicitly prohibit it. The critical element here is the user’s intent and the method by which it is expressed. A court order can also compel access, but the question focuses on the direct relationship between the user, fiduciary, and custodian. The terms of service of the digital asset provider are paramount in determining access rights when no other explicit direction from the user is available or when those terms do not conflict with the user’s explicit instructions. Therefore, in the absence of a specific tool or explicit terms of service granting access, and without a conflicting court order or user-provided document, the default mechanism for access is governed by the digital asset provider’s terms.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in ORS Chapter 106, addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A key aspect of this act is the distinction between a user’s intent expressed in a “digital asset control document” and the default rules when such a document is absent or ambiguous. ORS 106.230 outlines the hierarchy of authority. If a user has created a digital asset control document that specifically grants or denies a fiduciary access to certain digital assets, that document generally governs. However, if the document is silent on a particular asset or is otherwise unclear, the fiduciary must then rely on the terms of the online service provider’s terms of service, if they are consistent with the user’s intent. If neither the control document nor the terms of service provide clear guidance, ORS 106.240 permits a fiduciary to petition a court for a determination of the user’s intent. The act emphasizes that a fiduciary’s authority is derivative and limited by the user’s own rights and the terms of the service provider. Therefore, a fiduciary cannot unilaterally override the terms of service or access assets the user themselves could not access. The question asks about the most effective method for a fiduciary to gain access when the user’s intent is unclear and the terms of service are not dispositive. In such a scenario, seeking a court order is the legally sound and definitive method to establish the fiduciary’s authority and clarify access rights, ensuring compliance with Oregon law.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.655 addresses the transfer of digital assets upon the death of the user. This statute specifically delineates how a “provider” (an entity holding a digital asset on behalf of a user) must handle requests for access to or disclosure of a user’s digital assets. The statute establishes a hierarchical framework for determining who can access these assets. First, the user’s terms of service agreement with the provider governs access. If the terms of service are silent or do not provide for access, the user’s will or a trust document that specifically grants the user’s agent the power to access digital assets takes precedence. If neither of these is available, then a court order directing the provider to disclose the digital asset to the user’s agent or personal representative is required. The statute explicitly states that a general grant of power to an agent in a power of attorney is insufficient to grant access to digital assets unless the power of attorney specifically refers to digital assets. Furthermore, the statute protects providers from liability for complying with a user’s terms of service or a court order. The key here is that the terms of service are the primary determinant, followed by specific provisions in a will or trust, and then by court order. A generic power of attorney does not override these provisions. Therefore, in the absence of specific instructions in the terms of service, will, or trust, a court order is the necessary mechanism for an agent to gain access.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.644 addresses the transfer of digital assets upon the death of the owner. This statute provides a framework for how digital assets can be controlled and distributed. Specifically, it allows a user to provide instructions regarding the disposition of their digital assets in a “digital asset control document.” This document can be a will, trust, power of attorney, or a separate written record that clearly identifies the digital asset and the intended recipient. The statute also outlines the rights of a personal representative or a person designated in a digital asset control document to access and manage these assets. The statute aims to provide clarity and legal standing for the management of digital assets, which often have significant personal or financial value, and to ensure that the owner’s intentions are respected after their death. It is important to note that the specific requirements for a valid digital asset control document are detailed within the statute to ensure enforceability and prevent ambiguity.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. ORS 106.220 outlines the types of digital assets that a fiduciary can control. This statute clarifies that a fiduciary’s authority extends to digital assets that the user has granted the fiduciary the right to access, either directly or indirectly. This includes assets held in a digital-asset account, online communications, and other digital content. The key principle is that the fiduciary steps into the shoes of the user regarding these assets, subject to the terms of service of the digital-asset custodian and any specific instructions provided by the user. The act emphasizes the importance of the user’s intent and the contractual relationship between the user and the digital-asset custodian. The fiduciary’s powers are not absolute but are derived from the user’s grant of authority and are limited by the terms of service of the platform hosting the digital assets. Therefore, a fiduciary’s ability to manage or distribute digital assets is contingent upon the terms of the governing instrument and the specific rights conferred by the digital-asset custodian’s terms of service.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADAA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access and manage a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between content and conduct. ORS 106.215(1) explicitly states that a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset does not grant the fiduciary authority to alter or delete the digital asset, unless the user’s terms of service specifically permit such actions by the fiduciary. This means that while a fiduciary can view, download, or otherwise access the information contained within a digital asset, they generally cannot change its underlying content or delete it. For example, a personal representative can read emails or download photos, but they cannot edit a blog post or delete a cloud-stored document unless the service agreement allows it. This provision is designed to protect the integrity of digital assets and prevent unauthorized modifications or destruction of a person’s digital legacy. The act emphasizes a tiered approach to granting access, prioritizing the user’s own terms of service, followed by a specific digital asset power of attorney, and then by court orders or default rules. The core principle is to respect the user’s intent and the terms governing the digital asset.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.655 defines a digital asset as an electronic record that the owner of the right to the record has a right to possess or control. This definition is broad and encompasses various forms of digital property. When considering the transfer of digital assets upon death, the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted in Oregon, provides the framework. ORS 105.661(1) states that a fiduciary’s authority to access a digital asset of a decedent is governed by the terms of service of the online custodian. However, ORS 105.661(2) clarifies that if the terms of service grant the user the right to allow a fiduciary to access the account, the fiduciary’s access is governed by the terms of service. Crucially, ORS 105.661(3) establishes that if the terms of service do not provide for fiduciary access, or if the custodian has not provided the user with a procedure to grant access, a fiduciary may be granted access by a court order. This court order is typically sought under ORS 105.664, which allows a court to order a custodian to grant a fiduciary access to a digital asset. Therefore, in the absence of explicit terms of service or a user-defined method for granting access, a court order is the necessary legal mechanism for a fiduciary to obtain access to a decedent’s digital assets in Oregon.

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 98, specifically ORS 98.302, addresses the disposition of unclaimed property. When a digital asset custodian, as defined under ORS 105.655, holds unclaimed digital assets, the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, as adopted in Oregon, governs the process. The law mandates that custodians must attempt to notify the owner of the unclaimed property. If the property remains unclaimed after a specified period, typically three years under ORS 98.322, the custodian must report and deliver the property to the Oregon State Treasurer. This process involves escheatment, where the property reverts to the state. The key is that the custodian must make reasonable efforts to locate the owner before escheatment occurs. The specific reporting and delivery deadlines are detailed in ORS 98.342 and ORS 98.346. The law does not permit the custodian to unilaterally terminate the account or seize the assets without following these statutory procedures. The digital asset custodian’s duty is to preserve the asset and attempt contact with the owner.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.655 addresses the disposition of digital assets upon the death of the owner. Specifically, it clarifies that a digital asset is any property that is stored or transmitted in a computer or in a digital or electronic form. The statute grants a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, the power to access, control, or dispose of a user’s digital assets. This power is contingent upon the terms of a valid will, trust, or other testamentary document that specifically grants such authority, or if the fiduciary has been appointed by a court with specific authority over digital assets. The statute also acknowledges the importance of online service provider terms of service, but it prioritizes the explicit instructions within the deceased’s estate planning documents or court orders. Therefore, if the deceased’s will clearly designates a specific individual to manage their digital assets and provides explicit authority, that designation supersedes general terms of service that might otherwise restrict access. The key is the legally recognized intent of the asset owner as expressed through their estate planning or judicial appointment.

The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 98, specifically ORS 98.130 through ORS 98.140, addresses the disposition of unclaimed digital property. While the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act (UUPA) provides a general framework, Oregon has specific provisions for digital assets. When a service provider holds unclaimed digital property, such as cryptocurrency, digital accounts, or digital content, and the owner has not accessed or communicated with the provider for a specified period (often three years, as per ORS 98.135), the property is generally presumed abandoned. The service provider must then attempt to notify the owner. If the owner remains unresponsive, the service provider is typically required to remit the property to the Oregon State Treasurer. The process involves reporting the abandoned property, which includes details about the nature of the digital asset and the last known owner information. The service provider must maintain records for a specified period. The key principle is that the state takes custody of abandoned property, holding it for the benefit of the owner who can reclaim it by providing satisfactory proof of ownership. This aligns with the state’s role in protecting property rights and ensuring that assets do not remain indefinitely in the possession of private entities without owner engagement. The law aims to balance the service provider’s need to manage dormant accounts with the owner’s right to their digital property.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, addresses how fiduciaries can access a user’s digital assets. A critical aspect of this act is the distinction between a “custodian” and a “user.” A custodian is defined as a person who holds, possesses, or controls a digital asset on behalf of another person. This includes entities like cloud storage providers, social media platforms, or email services. The user is the person who owns or has a legal right to the digital asset. OUFADA outlines a hierarchy of authority for accessing digital assets. Generally, a user can grant access through an “online tool” provided by the custodian, or by explicitly stating their intent in their will or a separate document. If no such provision is made, the fiduciary’s authority is determined by the terms of service of the custodian and, if those are silent or ambiguous, by Oregon law. The law prioritizes the user’s explicit instructions. However, the question focuses on the fiduciary’s *right to access* based on the *terms of service* when no explicit user instruction exists. In such a scenario, the fiduciary’s ability to access the digital asset is governed by what the custodian’s terms of service permit. If the terms of service grant the custodian discretion or impose specific limitations on fiduciary access, those terms would dictate the fiduciary’s rights. Therefore, the most accurate answer is that the fiduciary’s right to access is determined by the custodian’s terms of service, assuming no explicit user direction exists.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADAA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives or trustees, can access a deceased or incapacitated person’s digital assets. Under ORS 106.200, a fiduciary’s right to access digital assets is determined by the terms of a digital asset controlling document, such as a will, trust, or separate online account direction. If no such document exists or it does not specifically grant access to digital assets, the fiduciary’s authority is limited by the online service provider’s terms of service. ORS 106.220 clarifies that a fiduciary may not be granted access to digital assets if the service provider’s terms of service prohibit it, unless the terms of service explicitly permit it or the user has granted access through the provider’s tools. The core principle is that the user’s intent, as expressed in a controlling document or through the service provider’s interface, governs access. Therefore, a fiduciary’s ability to access a deceased user’s cloud storage account, which contains personal photographs and financial records, would primarily depend on whether the user had provided explicit consent for such access through the cloud provider’s account settings or in a legally valid digital asset controlling document. Without such explicit authorization, the service provider’s terms of service would dictate access.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access digital assets. ORS 106.235 outlines the default rules for a user’s digital assets when no terms of service agreement or other record explicitly governs access. This statute establishes a hierarchy of access, prioritizing a court order or a valid power of attorney that specifically grants authority over digital assets. In the absence of such instruments, the law then considers the user’s online account terms of service. If neither a court order, a specific power of attorney, nor terms of service are determinative, the statute provides for a default access framework based on the nature of the digital asset and the fiduciary’s role. For digital assets held in a trust, the trustee’s authority is generally recognized as per the trust instrument, provided it aligns with the OUFADA. However, the question implies a scenario where the trust instrument itself does not explicitly detail digital asset management. In such cases, the fiduciary’s ability to access digital assets is governed by the statutory framework, which prioritizes specific authorization over general fiduciary powers when dealing with digital assets. Therefore, a trustee of a trust created in Oregon, even without explicit mention of digital assets in the trust document, can access those digital assets if the trust instrument grants broad authority to manage the trust estate, which by statutory interpretation under OUFADA would encompass digital assets not otherwise governed by terms of service or specific user instructions. The key is that the trust instrument must grant the trustee the power to manage the trust property, and digital assets are considered property under OUFADA.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.655 defines a “digital asset” broadly to include an electronic record that a person owns or has a right to possess. This definition is crucial for understanding how digital assets are treated under Oregon law, particularly concerning their disposition upon death. ORS 105.655(3) further clarifies that a digital asset is not a legal entity, a security, or an account. The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), adopted in Oregon, governs how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives of estates, can access and manage a user’s digital assets. Under UFADAA, a custodian of a digital asset must comply with a lawful request for access from a fiduciary. The law prioritizes a user’s explicit instructions regarding their digital assets, often found in a will or a separate document. If no explicit instructions are given, the law provides default rules for access. The key principle is that the fiduciary acts in the user’s stead, managing the digital assets according to the user’s intent or, in the absence of expressed intent, according to the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries. The statute aims to balance the user’s privacy with the need for efficient estate administration.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.640 addresses the disposition of digital assets upon the death of a user. This statute defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic accounts, data, and digital media. The law establishes a hierarchy for controlling digital assets. If a user has created a “digital estate plan” by designating a “digital agent” in a will, trust, or other record, that designation is generally honored. However, if no such designation exists, or if the provider’s terms of service are inconsistent with the user’s intent or the law, the statute outlines default provisions. Specifically, ORS 105.640(3) grants the personal representative of the estate the authority to access and manage digital assets. This authority is subject to limitations imposed by the terms of service of the online service provider and any applicable federal or state law. The statute aims to provide a framework for managing digital assets that balances the user’s intent, the rights of heirs and beneficiaries, and the terms of service of digital platform providers. It acknowledges the evolving nature of digital property and seeks to provide clarity in its administration after death. The core principle is to allow for the orderly transfer and management of these assets, recognizing their increasing importance in modern estates. The law prioritizes explicit user intent through a digital estate plan but provides a default mechanism when such plans are absent or incomplete, ensuring that digital assets are not left in limbo.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 98 governs unclaimed property, including digital assets. When a business entity, such as a cryptocurrency exchange operating in Oregon, ceases to exist or abandons its digital assets, these assets may be considered unclaimed property subject to escheatment to the state. The Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, as adopted and modified in Oregon, provides the framework for identifying, reporting, and remitting abandoned property. Specifically, ORS 98.302 defines intangible property, which broadly encompasses most digital assets like cryptocurrency balances, digital collectibles, and online account credits. ORS 98.332 mandates that holders of unclaimed intangible property must exercise due diligence to locate the owner before reporting it as abandoned. This typically involves sending written notice to the owner’s last known address. ORS 98.352 outlines the reporting requirements, specifying that unclaimed property must be reported annually to the Oregon Department of State Lands. The statute also sets forth a dormancy period, typically three years for most intangible property, after which the property is presumed abandoned if there has been no owner activity. For digital assets held by a business entity that has dissolved or ceased operations, the dormancy period generally begins when the business relationship with the owner ends or when the property becomes payable or deliverable. The critical element is the absence of owner contact or transaction for the statutory period. The question tests the understanding of when such digital assets are considered abandoned under Oregon law, focusing on the dormancy period and the cessation of business operations. The three-year dormancy period, commencing from the last contact or when the property became payable, is the key trigger for escheatment.

The Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (UFADAA), as adopted and modified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives of estates or trustees, can access a deceased or incapacitated user’s digital assets. ORS 106.210 outlines the priority of access. It establishes that a user’s intent, as expressed in a digital asset control document, takes precedence. If no such document exists, the law then looks to the terms of a trust or a power of attorney. If none of these are available, the law defaults to the terms of the user’s will. Finally, if none of the preceding instruments provide direction, the user’s digital assets are handled according to the law governing the distribution of property under Oregon’s intestacy statutes. This hierarchical structure ensures that the user’s expressed wishes are paramount, but provides a clear framework for fiduciary access when those wishes are not explicitly documented in a dedicated control document. The concept of a “digital asset control document” is key here, as it is the most direct method for a user to grant access. In the absence of such a document, the law provides a cascading set of default provisions.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADAA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a principal’s digital assets. ORS 106.205(3) defines a “digital asset” broadly to include electronic communications, data stored on a computer, and online accounts. ORS 106.215 establishes the priority of control over digital assets. It states that a fiduciary’s right to access a digital asset is governed by the terms of service of the online service provider, a specific digital asset designation from the user, or a court order. In the absence of these, the fiduciary may be granted access if the digital asset is reasonably necessary for the fiduciary to perform their duties. However, the Act prioritizes the user’s intent and the terms of service. When a user has provided a specific digital asset designation, this takes precedence over a general power of attorney or a will that does not specifically reference digital assets. The Act aims to balance the fiduciary’s need to manage the principal’s affairs with the privacy expectations of the digital service providers and the user’s expressed wishes. Therefore, a comprehensive digital asset designation, which is a specific instruction from the user about who can access which digital assets and under what conditions, would be the most direct and legally sound method for ensuring a designated fiduciary can access specific online accounts.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.640 addresses the disposition of digital assets upon a person’s death. This statute generally requires a fiduciary, such as an executor or administrator, to provide a copy of the decedent’s death certificate to a custodian of digital assets to gain access. The law distinguishes between digital assets that are content and those that provide access to digital assets, like accounts. Custodians are generally obligated to provide access to content if the user agreement permits, but access to accounts or digital assets that are not content may be restricted unless specifically authorized by law or the user agreement. The statute aims to balance the decedent’s intent and privacy with the rights of the estate and the custodian’s terms of service. It’s important to note that specific federal laws, such as the Stored Communications Act, may also impact access to certain digital communications. The Oregon law provides a framework for handling these assets, but the practical application often depends on the specific terms of service of the digital asset custodian and any applicable federal regulations. The statute does not create a broad right of access for fiduciaries; rather, it clarifies the process and conditions under which access might be granted, often requiring specific authorization or adherence to the custodian’s policies. The focus is on enabling the fiduciary to fulfill their duties concerning digital assets, which can include managing, distributing, or preserving them according to the decedent’s will or intestacy laws.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 106, specifically addresses how fiduciaries, such as personal representatives of an estate, can access a deceased user’s digital assets. ORS 106.210(1) outlines the primary method for a fiduciary to gain access: through a court order or an effective digital asset control document. An “effective digital asset control document” is defined in ORS 106.200(6) as a record that grants the user’s representative authority to access digital assets. This document must be signed by the user and either delivered to the digital asset custodian or accompanied by a written statement from the user directing the custodian to grant access. Without such a document or a court order, a fiduciary’s access is generally limited to what is publicly available or what the custodian permits under its own terms of service, as custodians are not obligated to provide access solely based on a fiduciary’s appointment as personal representative. The scenario describes a fiduciary appointed by a probate court in Oregon. The fiduciary has presented the court’s letters testamentary, which confirm their authority to administer the deceased’s estate. However, the digital asset custodian, a company based in California but serving Oregon residents, has a policy requiring either a court order specifically authorizing access to digital assets or an “effective digital asset control document” as defined by OUFADA. The letters testamentary, while establishing the fiduciary’s general authority over the estate’s assets, do not, in themselves, constitute a court order specifically directing the custodian to grant access to digital assets, nor do they substitute for an effective digital asset control document. Therefore, the custodian’s refusal is permissible under Oregon law unless the fiduciary can provide one of the statutorily recognized forms of authorization.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 105.645 addresses the transfer of digital assets upon death. Specifically, ORS 105.647 outlines the types of digital assets that can be transferred, including online accounts, digital content, and digital personal property. ORS 105.649 establishes that a fiduciary, such as an executor or trustee, can access a user’s digital assets if the user has provided explicit consent in a will, trust, or power of attorney. The statute also distinguishes between digital assets that are the user’s own property and those held in trust for others. When a user dies without a clear directive, the default is that the digital asset service provider’s terms of service govern, which often do not permit transfer to a personal representative. Therefore, for an executor to legally access and manage a deceased individual’s online subscription service that contains personal creative works and is not explicitly designated in a will or trust, the executor would need to rely on the terms of service of the digital asset provider or a court order, as the statute’s direct transfer provisions require prior authorization. The scenario presented does not include a will, trust, or power of attorney granting access.

The Oregon Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (OUFADAA), codified in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 107, specifically addresses how fiduciaries can access a digital asset owner’s digital assets. ORS 107.835 outlines the general rule that a fiduciary’s authority to access digital assets is governed by the terms of the digital asset account agreement. However, the Act provides specific mechanisms for fiduciaries to gain access when the agreement is silent or restricts access. ORS 107.840 details the methods by which a user can grant a fiduciary access, including through a specific tool provided by the custodian, a court order, or a separate legal instrument like a will or power of attorney that specifically grants this authority. When a user has not provided explicit instructions through these means, ORS 107.850 comes into play, establishing a hierarchy of access. The fiduciary can request access from the custodian, and if the custodian has not provided a tool and the user has not granted access otherwise, the custodian must grant access if presented with a court order or a valid power of attorney that specifically grants authority to access digital assets. If no court order or specific power of attorney is provided, and the custodian has no tool, the fiduciary must demonstrate that they are acting as a fiduciary for the user and that the user has not granted access to another person. The law prioritizes the user’s intent and the terms of the account agreement, but provides recourse for fiduciaries to act when necessary. The scenario describes a fiduciary seeking access to digital assets where no explicit tool was provided by the custodian and the user’s will is silent on digital asset access. In such a case, the fiduciary must first attempt to obtain a court order. If a court order is not feasible or is denied, and the custodian has not provided a specific tool, the fiduciary may be able to gain access by demonstrating their fiduciary status and the absence of other authorized access. However, the most direct and legally sound method when a will is silent and no custodian tool exists is through a court order.