CustodyStress
Archive › Owner incapacity
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01369

In most US states that have adopted RUFADAA, a durable power of attorney does cover

Constrained
Case description
A 2025 case involved a holder who had suffered a severe stroke that left them unable to communicate or perform fine motor tasks. Their durable power of attorney did not specifically reference digital assets, creating legal uncertainty about whether the attorney-in-fact could access the self-custody wallet. In most US states that have adopted RUFADAA, a durable power of attorney does cover digital assets if the document grants broad financial authority—but without the wallet PIN or seed phrase location, even valid legal authority could not access the Bitcoin. A digital asset estate specialist was engaged to work with the holder's family to locate the documentation through a systematic search of the holder's home and digital records.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner incapacity
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryUnited States
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failureLegal process required
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 incapacity
68 cases involve owner incapacity 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