CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01340

Destroyed in fire — hardware wallet (2025)

Constrained
Case description
A 2025 Florida probate case described by a digital estate planning attorney involved a deceased holder who had been meticulous about documenting their Bitcoin custody—but had stored all documentation in a password-protected file on a laptop that was damaged in a house fire. The laptop was physically intact but the storage drive had corrupted sectors covering the section where the documentation was stored. A data recovery specialist was able to restore approximately 70% of the file, which was sufficient to identify the wallet addresses on-chain and the approximate seed phrase—but three words were unrecoverable. A seed phrase recovery specialist was engaged to brute-force the three unknown positions using the known 21 words as anchors.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
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. Whether full access was ultimately possible is unclear, but significant delay or outside intervention was involved.
Outcome interpretation
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Source
Privately Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving owner death
119 cases involve owner death 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
Terms guide
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.
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