CustodyStress
Archive › Owner incapacity
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01381

Owner incapacity — hardware wallet (2025)

Constrained
Case description
A 2025 incapacity planning case involved a Bitcoin holder with a traumatic brain injury sustained in 2024 who had regained significant cognitive function but retained short-term memory impairment that made managing private key security unreliable. The holder worked with a custody specialist to migrate to a Casa 2-of-3 multisig arrangement where Casa held a server key and two hardware keys were held by the holder and a trusted family member. The arrangement allowed the family member to co-sign transactions if the holder could not, while requiring the holder's participation for full self-custody actions—a graduated access model appropriate for the specific cognitive impairment profile.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner incapacity
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
Evidence link
https://www.wealthmanagement.com/estate-planning/bitcoin-after-death-2025-estate-guide
Related cases involving owner incapacity
The exchange account held approximately $120,000 in Bitcoin.
Exchange custody · 2025 Survives
Owner incapacity — Coinbase (2025)
Exchange custody · 2025 Constrained
In most US states that have adopted RUFADAA, a durable power of attorney does cover
Hardware wallet (single key) · 2025 Constrained
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
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