Digital Assets and Estate Planning: Preventing and Resolving Trust and Probate Challenges
During the probate process, executors of estates and their attorneys increasingly encounter estates that include cryptocurrency, yet few have the tools to manage or access these assets effectively. When digital assets are involved, the most critical factor is identifying them and preserving access before irreversible mistakes are made.
Unlike traditional financial accounts, cryptocurrency is not held by a third party unless it is on a centralized exchange. Most high-value holdings are stored in self-custody wallets, whether stored on hardware devices (e.g., Ledger or Trezor), browser extensions (e.g., MetaMask), or mobile apps (e.g., Trust Wallet). These wallets rely on cryptographic keys, typically in the form of a 12- or 24-word recovery phrase, in order to restore the wallet or a 6+-digit PIN to access the wallet. Without the recovery phrase or the PIN, access to the asset is almost impossible. There is no username or password reset, no legal mechanism to compel access, and no “backup” authority to call.
The first step is to determine the type of wallet in question. If a physical device is discovered, it should not be connected, reset, or tampered with before being evaluated by someone familiar with digital forensics. The wallet should never be connected to a computer or have its firmware—the internal software that controls the device—updated, and no attempts should be made to guess the PIN. Even a few incorrect entries can permanently erase the data. Many wallets are configured with features that automatically wipe data after a few incorrect login attempts. In other cases, assets may be stored in a “hidden” or “vault” wallet that does not appear on startup.
If the recovery phrase or credentials are missing, speculative access attempts should be avoided. Preserving the device in its current condition and consulting professionals with cryptographic recovery expertise offer the greatest chance of successful recovery. These services can help determine whether access is possible based on the device type, usage history, or available metadata.
Fiduciaries cannot assume they have free rein to access digital assets, even as part of estate administration. As noted earlier, RUFADAA allows fiduciaries to access certain digital property only if the estate plan clearly authorizes it. Without that explicit authority, attempts to retrieve these assets could violate privacy laws, and service providers often deny access requests unless backed by specific legal orders. Effective planning requires estate planners to ensure their documents include clear language granting fiduciaries the right to manage digital assets, reducing the risk of delays or legal challenges.
Cryptocurrency also creates unique escheatment risks. In some cases, if a wallet remains unused and unclaimed, states may initiate procedures to treat the funds as abandoned property, even if they remain technically inaccessible. Implementation varies, but awareness of escheatment timelines is essential, because crypto holdings are not immune to traditional unclaimed property laws.
In short, when digital wallets appear in an estate, it is essential to identify the wallet type, confirm whether recovery information exists, determine legal access rights, and avoid any technical action that could damage or erase critical data. In cases of uncertainty, involving experienced crypto asset recovery professionals early can help preserve value and reduce legal exposure.
For more information see Wesley Brandi and Deborah Hoffman “Digital Assets and Estate Planning: Preventing and Resolving Trust and Probate Challenges,” ABA Probate and Property Journal, December 30, 2025.