A will that leaves "all my digital property" to an unmarried partner does not, by itself, open a Gmail inbox, a photo library, or a crypto wallet. Florida enacted a specific hierarchy for that problem in 2016. It is still the law. Chapter 740, the Florida Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, decides who may see **content**, who may see a **catalog**, and which click inside an account overrides the estate-planning documents. An unmarried partner has no status under that chapter as a partner. The partner gets access only as a person the user named -- as a designated recipient, an agent under a power of attorney, a trustee, or a court-appointed personal representative -- and only to the extent the statute allows.

Section 740.002 is the dictionary. A "digital asset" is an electronic record in which an individual has a right or interest. It does not include an underlying asset or liability unless that asset or liability is itself an electronic record. The password file is in; the house the password file describes is not. "Content of an electronic communication" is the substance or meaning of a message that was sent or received, is stored by a public electronic-communication or remote-computing service, and is not readily accessible to the public. A "catalog of electronic communications" is thinner: who the user communicated with, when, and the electronic address. An "online tool" is an electronic service the custodian provides, in an agreement **distinct from** the terms-of-service agreement, that lets the user direct disclosure or nondisclosure of digital assets to a third person. A "designated recipient" is the person chosen through that online tool.

The hierarchy is in section 740.003, and it is easy to reverse in a short conversation.

First: if the user used an online tool to direct the custodian to disclose, or not to disclose, some or all digital assets -- including content -- and if that tool allows the user to modify or delete the direction at all times, the online-tool direction **overrides** a contrary direction in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

Second: if the user has not used an online tool, or the custodian has not provided one, the user may allow or prohibit disclosure to a fiduciary in a will, trust, power of attorney, or other record.

Third: a user's direction under either of those rules overrides a contrary terms-of-service provision that does not require the user to act affirmatively and distinctly from assent to the terms of service.

That order is why a partner named in a careful will can still lose to a leftover setting in an old account. Google's inactive-account manager and Facebook's legacy-contact feature are the usual illustrations of an "online tool." Whether a particular vendor's current menu satisfies section 740.002(16) is a facts question. The statutory point does not depend on the brand: if a qualifying online tool is in force, it wins.

Powers of attorney are where most living couples actually fail. Section 740.008 requires a custodian to disclose to an agent the **content** of electronic communications only if the power of attorney **expressly** grants the agent authority over that content, and only if the agent produces a written request, the power of attorney with that express grant, a certification under penalty of perjury that the power of attorney is in effect, and, if asked, an account identifier or evidence linking the account to the principal. A general "digital assets" sentence is not always enough. Content is its own grant.

Catalog and other digital assets are easier. Section 740.009 says that, unless a court orders otherwise, the principal directs otherwise, or the power of attorney provides otherwise, a custodian shall disclose to an agent who has **specific authority over digital assets or general authority to act** a catalog of electronic communications and digital assets **except** the content of electronic communications. The partner-agent who can pay the electric bill still may not be able to open the email that contains the password to the electric-bill account.

After death, the split continues. Section 740.006 requires a custodian to disclose **content** of a deceased user's electronic communications to the personal representative if the deceased user consented or a court directs disclosure, and if the personal representative produces a written request, a certified death certificate, letters of administration or another listed court order (including a summary-administration order), and -- unless the user directed otherwise with an online tool -- a copy of the will, trust, power of attorney, or other record evidencing consent to disclosure of content. Section 740.007 is the catalog analog for a deceased user: unless the user prohibited disclosure or the court directs otherwise, the personal representative can obtain the catalog and other digital assets **except content** with a request, a death certificate, and letters or a comparable order, without that extra consent document.

Two consequences follow for unmarried partners. First, a partner who is only a devisee, and not a personal representative, is not the person chapter 740 is talking to. The statute's deceased-user sections run to the personal representative of the estate (defined in section 740.002(18) to include a person entitled to collect property under a summary-administration order). Second, if the partner **is** the personal representative, content still requires the decedent's consent or a court order. A will that is silent on electronic-communication content is a weak request to a custodian that is used to saying no.

Custodians keep discretion about **how** they disclose. Section 740.005 lets the custodian grant full access, partial access, or a copy of what the user could have accessed. The custodian may charge a reasonable fee and need not disclose assets the user deleted. Chapter 740 is a disclosure statute, not a promise of the password on a sticky note.

None of this makes the partner an heir. Digital assets that are property still pass under the will, the trust, the beneficiary designation, or intestacy. Chapter 740 decides who may see them and operate the account so that transfer can happen. Intestacy still skips unmarried partners (sections 732.102, 732.103). A local domestic-partnership card does not change that, and it does not satisfy section 740.003.

The documents that match the statute are dull, and they have to be consistent. A durable power of attorney that expressly grants authority over the **content** of electronic communications, plus specific or general digital-asset authority for the catalog. A will or trust that states the same consent for a personal representative or trustee after death. An inventory of the actual online tools, so a leftover setting does not override all of that. And a partner named as the fiduciary who will make the request -- because chapter 740 does not have a column labeled "the person who knew the passwords."

This article is general information, not advice about a particular account, device, or estate, and not an instruction to circumvent any provider's security. The Law Office of Shawn C. Newman, P.A. offers a free consultation in person or by Zoom. Call (954) 563-9160 or visit www.shawnnewman.com. The office is at 710 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, Florida 33305, and serves Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties.