Smart Home Devices Proved Undue Influence in a Maryland Will

Eleanor Price had always been meticulous. A retired teacher in Montgomery County, she kept labeled binders for everything—taxes, insurance, even recipes. Her estate plan reflected that same care: a will leaving her home equally to her two children, Daniel and Marissa, and modest bequests to a few charities.

After her aneurysm, things changed quickly. Eleanor survived, but her memory became unreliable. A caregiver, Thomas Reed, moved into the home. Within three months, a new will appeared. This one left the house almost entirely to Thomas.

Daniel and Marissa were stunned.

They came in with a familiar story: sudden change, isolation, a new influencer in the home. But unlike older cases, this one had something else—the house itself had been quietly recording what was happening.

Eleanor had installed a voice assistant in the kitchen, a security camera at the front door, and a medication app on a tablet her daughter had set up years ago.

The question was whether we could get the data.

Maryland follows the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, which is supposed to help fiduciaries access digital information. In practice, it works well for email and social media. It is much less clear when you are dealing with device-generated data like voice recordings and motion logs.

We started with the will. Fortunately, Eleanor’s older estate documents contained a broad digital access clause—language that allowed her personal representative to access “all digital assets,” including stored audio and video. That clause became critical.

Even with that, the service providers did not simply hand over the information. They pointed to their terms of service and, in some cases, federal privacy restrictions under the Stored Communications Act.

So we narrowed the request.

Instead of demanding everything, we asked first for non-content data: logs showing when the front door opened, timestamps of activity on the voice assistant, and medication adherence records. That data was easier to obtain and immediately useful.

The front door logs told a story. Thomas was present nearly every night, often entering and exiting at unusual hours. The medication app showed missed doses clustering in the weeks leading up to the new will. That alone raised concerns about Eleanor’s capacity.

But the turning point came when we sought limited audio records tied to specific dates—just a handful of evenings when the will was allegedly discussed.

This required a court order.

We framed the request narrowly: specific dates, specific relevance, tied directly to a claim of undue influence. The court granted it.

The recordings were not dramatic in the way television might suggest. There was no single “smoking gun” moment. But there was a pattern. Eleanor repeatedly asked the same questions. She seemed confused about who owned the house. In one clip, Thomas corrected her in a way that was subtle but telling: “You wanted me to have it, remember?”

That was enough.

Combined with the logs, the medical records, and testimony from neighbors, the court found that Eleanor lacked the capacity to execute the new will and that undue influence had likely occurred. The prior will was reinstated.

Daniel and Marissa got their mother’s original plan back.

The case highlights something Maryland law has not fully caught up with yet. RUFADAA gives a framework, but it does not clearly define whether smart-device recordings and sensor data are “content” or something else. Providers tend to treat everything as protected content, which forces attorneys into a more strategic approach.

There are a few practical lessons.

First, estate planning documents should explicitly authorize access to all digital assets, including smart-home devices, recordings, and logs. General language is often not enough anymore.

Second, when seeking data, it is more effective to start with logs and metadata before pushing for full recordings. That builds a factual foundation and makes courts more receptive to targeted requests.

Third, courts will grant access when the request is precise and tied to a legitimate legal issue. Broad fishing expeditions are much less likely to succeed.

Finally, the reality is that homes are no longer passive spaces. They record behavior, routines, and interactions. In the right case, that information can be decisive.

Eleanor’s house did not just shelter her. In the end, it spoke for her.

What this means for you

If you have smart devices in your home—like voice assistants, cameras, or health apps—they may become part of your estate whether you plan for it or not. Without clear authorization, your family may have difficulty accessing that information when it matters most.

A properly drafted estate plan should:

• expressly authorize access to all digital assets, including smart-home data and recordings
• name someone you trust to manage those assets if you become incapacitated or pass away
• coordinate with your power of attorney to avoid gaps during incapacity

If you are updating your will or trust, this is the right time to make sure your digital life is fully covered.