CustodyStress
Archive › Documentation absent
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01342

Estate access failure — hardware wallet (2025)

Indeterminate
Case description
A 2025 estate case described by a Minnesota probate attorney involved a holder whose estate included a reference to 'the Bitcoin account at the bank' in their will. Investigation revealed the holder had participated in a Bitcoin IRA through a custodian and also held self-custody Bitcoin on a hardware wallet. The 'account at the bank' was the Bitcoin IRA, which the attorney handled through normal financial account procedures. The hardware wallet—which the family found but could not unlock, as neither the PIN nor the seed phrase was documented—remained inaccessible. The family had to choose between an extensive specialist recovery attempt and abandoning the hardware wallet contents.
Custody context
Stress conditionDocumentation absent
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeIndeterminate
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryUnited States
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. It's not clear whether anyone ever regained access.
Outcome interpretation
Not enough information is available to determine the outcome.
Source
Privately Reported
Evidence type
News article
Evidence link
https://www.morganlegalny.com/bitcoin-estate-planning-what-happen-to-your-cryptocurrency-holdings-after-you-die/
Related cases involving documentation absent
Documentation absent — hardware wallet 2025
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Indeterminate
The device had approximately $450,000 in Bitcoin on it.
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Constrained
Approximately $340,000 in Bitcoin remained on-chain and inaccessible.
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Blocked
193 cases involve documentation absent 274 cases involve hardware wallet (single key) View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Where Bitcoin Custody Intersects Legal and Fiduciary Authority
Where custody creates gaps in estate planning, fiduciary duty, and professional responsibility.
Professional Scope Boundary Matrix
What each professional or product covers, what they do not, and where gaps form between them.
The Independent Assessment Layer in Bitcoin Custody
How independent diagnostic layers emerge when multiple parties depend on shared infrastructure.
Terms guide
Outcome terms
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Structural terms
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate