Administering Digital Assets
Robert M. Harper, Chair of the NYSBA Trusts and Estates Law Section, discusses Article 13-A of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, New York's digital assets legislation.
January 24, 2020 at 01:00 PM
3 minute read
Robert M. Harper (Photo: Jim Lennon)
In 2016, the Legislature enacted Article 13-A of the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, New York's digital assets legislation. Article 13-A addresses the permissible scope of access to digital assets, and the duties that apply to such assets.
Article 13-A defines a "digital asset" as "an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest." EPTL §13-A-1(i). The definition of "digital asset" excludes "an underlying asset or liability unless the asset or liability is itself an electronic record." Id. Thus, where an electronic record represents "cash, stocks or bonds," it is not subject to Article 13-A. Jill C. Beier, "Probate v. Privacy: The Technology Battle After Death," 90 N.Y. St. B. J. 24 (2018). Conversely, where an electronic record "represents another electronic record such as emails, photos or documents stored in the cloud, virtual property in gaming sites, blogs, domain names, [and] online music and books," Article 13-A applies. Id. Although not yet addressed by a court, cryptocurrencies likely qualify as digital assets under Article 13-A.
Article 13-A provides that an estate fiduciary can access the content of the decedent's digital assets—such as emails, social media accounts, and cloud-based documents—where the decedent has consented to such access by an online tool, a will, or another document that controls the disposition of digital assets. Matter of Coleman, 63 Misc.3d 609 (Sur. Ct., Westchester County 2019). Absent such consent (and an express prohibition by the decedent), the fiduciary's access to a decedent's digital accounts generally will be limited to non-content information, including contacts, calendars, catalogues of emails (but not the emails themselves), and photographs. Matter of Serrano, 56 Misc.3d 497 (Sur. Ct., New York County 2017); Matter of Swezey, NYLJ, Jan. 18, 2019, at 34, col. 2 (Sur. Ct., New York County).
Access to digital assets may assist a fiduciary in identifying estate assets, and honoring the duties that Article 13-A imposes with respect to them. Specifically, EPTL §13-A-4.1 provides that the "legal duties imposed on a fiduciary charged with managing tangible property apply to the management of digital assets," and include the duties of care, loyalty, and confidentiality. EPTL §13-A-4.1.
As with other types of assets, a fiduciary's negligence in administering digital assets arguably could result in surcharges against the fiduciary. For example, just as with respect to traditional investments, a court could well determine that a surcharge is appropriate where a fiduciary retains cryptocurrencies—which fluctuate in value on a daily basis—for an unreasonably long period of time. As time passes, it will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, fiduciaries are surcharged for their administration of digital assets.
Robert M. Harper is an estate litigation partner at Farrell Fritz, P.C.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Antitrust Law Continues Its Turn in the Spotlight Antitrust Law Continues Its Turn in the Spotlight](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/99/84/f682ab6f439eb2da45011b672ec4/robin-van-der-meulen-767x633.jpg)
![The Value of ComFed for New Lawyers (And Not So New Ones) The Value of ComFed for New Lawyers (And Not So New Ones)](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/5f/85/1a79f1e94c178cc94d593a1b9b02/michael-cardello-767x633.jpg)
![Criminal Justice Discovery Reform: More Reforming than Meets the Eye Criminal Justice Discovery Reform: More Reforming than Meets the Eye](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/6d/67/918e3c944e0c80e2c926cb47eef2/leah-nowotarski-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250