Many people activate online accounts or have digital assets (e.g. widgets, flyer miles, online accounts, bitcoins, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, PayPal, Google Wallet, Amazon, eBay, Robinhood, online bank accounts, YouTube account that generates revenue, Google+, Yahoo, etc.).
But what happens to these assets when an individual dies or becomes incapacitated?
Until very recently, the asset was typically locked and access denied. The only way to obtain access was:
-Through court order (typically expensive and time consuming)
-By logging on as the individual (requires knowing password and arguably not legal)
-By being on a contact list on a legacy or inactive account (very few online entities actually have an online system of succession rights).
But on September 30, 2016, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA). Thanks to RUFADAA, an individual may now authorize their fiduciary (be it an authorized representative, power of attorney, executor, or trustee) certain rights and abilities to access that individual’s “digital asset(s).” (A “digital asset” is an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest.)
Granting access to one’s representative can be done by either specifying who can have access upon death or incapacity (i) directly on the website (e.g. Google Inactive Manager or Facebook Legacy Account) or (ii) in estate planning documents (Will, Trust, Power of Attorney, Authorization and Consent for Release of Electronically Stored Material).
It is particularly important to have the appropriate language in estate planning documents because many websites or online companies do not have pages, which will allow an individual to insert their succession rights. Indeed, online tools are sparse. If a website or online asset does not have an online tool that allows an individual to set forth the amount of access to authorize a fiduciary, then the clauses in the individual’s estate planning documents will govern.
Most digital custodians only have terms of service agreements. Therefore, appropriate clauses in your estate planning documents to authorize your fiduciary access to your digital assets are both simple to achieve and important to have.
Have you ever been in a case like this? Share you thoughts and experiences.
The issue of succession has never been an issue in the corporate world because in every endeavor where you are entitled to any benefit or otherwise, you are required to mention a next of kin who gets the right to administer all your property in case there is need for it eventually. However, this issue has been a subject of discourse when it come to digital assets. Other kind of digital assets (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, PayPal, Google Wallet, Amazon, eBay, Robinhood, online bank accounts, YouTube account that generates revenue, Google+, Yahoo, etc.) won't be any issue because you get to release your details and accept some terms and conditions before allowing any access which is why I dont see any challenge as development continue to happen in that direction as it relates to these kind of digital asset.
For crypto currency in general is where the task would not be easy surmountable because of the nature of crypto itself which would be interpreted as being defeated when questions unveiling anonymity is being asked to make this kind of move effective and that is where we need to weigh the cost and benefit of every actions that aims to develop this industry and boost confidence of people as well.