Zashin LawZashin Law2026-05-26T12:39:40Zhttps://www.zashinlaw.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1404356/2024/05/cropped-ZashinLaw-site-icon-32x32.pngby Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[How divorce should protect child’s education]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=501362026-04-20T20:14:53Z2026-04-20T20:14:01ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[Protecting your legacy after divorce]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=501162026-03-31T12:01:07Z2026-03-31T11:58:08ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[What families should know about Trump Accounts]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=500972026-03-02T21:31:50Z2026-02-23T22:00:11ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[Digital assets and divorce: Protecting your online life during separation]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=500692026-02-06T12:59:44Z2026-01-29T14:00:23ZDigital Property You Might Overlook
Many households now own valuable or sentimental digital assets without realizing it. These can include cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens, online payment app balances, monetized social-media accounts, domain names, digital creative works, or even loyalty program rewards. In Ohio, all property owned by either spouse, tangible or intangible, may be considered marital property if acquired during the marriage. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 3105.171, divorcing spouses must make full disclosure of all assets, and courts must divide marital property equitably. Digital holdings fall squarely within that framework, even if their value is hard to measure or easily concealed.
When a spouse fails to disclose assets, Section 3105.171(E) authorizes courts to impose penalties for “financial misconduct,” including concealment or nondisclosure. This can apply just as readily to a hidden cryptocurrency wallet or unreported online revenue stream as to a traditional bank account. Sophisticated attorneys increasingly see digital concealment as a growing challenge, which is why a detailed inventory and transparent disclosure are so important from the start.
Understanding Ohio’s Recognition of Digital Assets
Ohio law already acknowledges that digital property has real legal value. In 2017, the state adopted the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which allows designated individuals to manage or transfer someone’s digital accounts much like physical property. This law defines a digital asset broadly, covering anything of value stored electronically, from investment accounts and cryptocurrency to online businesses and personal photos.
While that law mainly applies in estate planning, its logic extends to divorce. Because Ohio’s domestic relations statute requires spouses to disclose and divide all property acquired during the marriage, digital assets fall under the same rules. Hidden crypto wallets, monetized social media accounts, or online income streams must be reported and valued just like bank accounts or real estate. Failing to do so can lead to serious financial penalties if a court views the omission as concealment or misconduct.
In short, Ohio law treats digital property as genuine property, and divorcing spouses should too.
Valuation, Privacy and Security Challenges
Digital assets can be difficult to value and even harder to control. Cryptocurrency prices change rapidly, online businesses may depend on fluctuating traffic or algorithms, and creative content often carries both market and emotional worth. Lawyers sometimes collaborate with financial analysts or forensic accountants to determine an appropriate valuation.
Privacy and security present additional complications. Spouses commonly share devices and passwords during marriage. Once a separation begins, that shared access can become a risk. Without clear boundaries, one spouse might lock the other out of accounts, delete shared content, or misuse private communications. Establishing clear digital access rules early in the process protects both parties and prevents unintentional misconduct.
Evidence and Children’s Online Presence
Digital information can also become evidence in a case. Text messages, metadata, account logs and financial app histories may be relevant to support or rebut claims of conduct, income, or asset ownership. It is important that such materials be preserved properly as deleting or altering them can have legal consequences.
Divorce today also involves decisions about children’s digital lives. Parents may need to agree on who manages a child’s social media accounts, how online photos are shared and what digital boundaries exist in co-parenting arrangements. As more of family life moves online, these considerations should be part of every parenting plan.
Protecting Yourself Through Proactive Planning
Clients preparing for divorce should consider a digital asset review that includes:
• A complete inventory of online accounts and digital property
• Secure documentation of logins and access methods
• Professional valuation of significant digital holdings
• Updated privacy settings and device security
• Clear agreements in the divorce decree about digital-asset control
• Post-divorce updates to digital-estate planning documents
Moving Forward
Digital assets are now a routine part of everyday life. They reflect how people communicate, work and store value. As technology continues to evolve, these assets will play an even larger role in divorce cases. Ohio law already provides the foundation for treating them seriously and careful legal guidance ensures they are handled properly.
This article originally appeared as a column for the Cleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[No substitute for practical experience in expert witnesses, reports]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=498922025-11-21T14:35:30Z2025-10-28T14:00:02ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its effect on charitable donations]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=498392025-10-27T15:46:42Z2025-10-22T15:40:56ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[A hidden cost of divorce: How people, often women, lose insurance and financial security]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=497572025-07-18T19:36:22Z2025-07-17T18:00:43ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[Service animal regulations on flights: Soon to be no-fly zone for all pups?]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=497532025-07-18T19:21:57Z2025-06-27T17:00:44ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[Landmark estate, gift, generation-skipping tax exemptions expire at year’s end]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=497342025-06-18T13:34:29Z2025-06-16T17:00:33ZCleveland Jewish News.]]>by Andrew Zashin<![CDATA[When philanthropic giving goes wrong]]>https://www.zashinlaw.com/?p=496492025-02-27T15:46:42Z2025-02-25T19:00:31ZBacking out of a commitment to give under any circumstance – the gift is forgiven
Initially, people sometimes make promises and fail to deliver. Usually, the promised gift is forgiven if the matter is handled delicately and respectfully. Institutions want to preserve relationships with donors. Donors, likewise, generally want to preserve their relationships with the institutions about which they care, even if they need to walk-back a donation.
Backing out of a commitment to Give – the institution enforces the gift
Sometimes, however, conditions surrounding the gift get more complicated. Consider the example of a philanthropist who promised to fund a project that would bear his name, and for whatever reason, backed out of the project. Based on the legal principles of detrimental reliance and promissory estoppel, the philanthropist, even without having entered a contract, can be forced to deliver on his promise in certain circumstances. Such a situation might occur if the institution relied on a reasonable promise, that reliance was detrimental, and the only way damage can be avoided is to enforce the promise. Such situations are rare, but they do happen. In such a case, the institution would be free to rename the project.
The commitment is ongoing during divorce
It is somewhat common for philanthropic couples to make gifts that are paid over a period of time. Upon divorce what happens? If, when a couple divorces, they can no longer afford the obligation, couples in these situations, or lawyers on behalf of the couples, almost always engage the institution. Generally, institutions are eager to help solve these problems.
Other times, the outstanding obligation is treated as a marital debt. The couples may work together to renegotiate the terms of the commitment and share any tax benefits or other benefits attendant to the gift. From a divorce perspective, the gift obligation between the spouses will be treated as a debt to be shared, in an agreed upon percentage. Or, if the parties cannot agree, just like an asset, a debt is presumed to be divided 50-50, or otherwise as a judge or magistrate deems fair and equitable under the circumstances. When a couple defaults on an obligation, the institution can rename whatever was gifted, if they choose, or as according to the charitable documentation provides.
More difficult are the situations where, upon divorce, couples want to rename, or “de-name,” gifts previously given. The original charitable documents may control the outcome. Sometimes, lawyers need to get involved, but again, institutions tend to cooperate to find solutions that work seamlessly for the divorcing philanthropists.
As with all these situations, solutions require finesse and a deft hand.
This article originally appeared as a column for the Cleveland Jewish News.]]>