Key Takeaways
Cryptocurrency can be divided in a Maine divorce. Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and other digital assets can have significant economic value and may become part of the property division when spouses divorce.
When and how the asset was acquired matters. Under 19-A M.R.S. § 953, Maine presumes that property acquired during marriage is marital. Cryptocurrency owned before marriage, received by gift or inheritance, or otherwise falling within a statutory exception may remain wholly or partly nonmarital.
Account control does not decide legal ownership. One spouse may control an exchange account, private wallet, password, or seed phrase, but that control does not determine whether Maine law treats the asset as marital property.
Tracing can become complicated. Digital assets may move among exchanges, wallets, and different cryptocurrencies. Transaction histories, blockchain records, bank statements, and tax documents can help establish where the assets came from.
Discovery can help locate digital assets. A spouse does not need to know every wallet address before seeking information. Traditional financial records often provide a useful starting point.
Valuation requires careful attention. Cryptocurrency prices can change substantially while a divorce remains pending, so the valuation date and method can materially affect the property division.
Careful settlement terms matter. Agreements involving cryptocurrency should clearly identify the assets, quantities, valuation method, transfer procedure, deadlines, fees, and available tax information.
Introduction
Cryptocurrency and other digital assets can become part of the property division in a Maine divorce. Maine does not use a separate divorce statute specifically for Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. Instead, courts apply the state’s existing marital-property rules to determine whether digital assets are marital or nonmarital, what they are worth, and how they fit into the overall property division.
The subject can create considerable anxiety. A spouse who has never owned cryptocurrency may suddenly learn that a meaningful portion of the family’s wealth sits in Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, or another digital asset. Another spouse may have purchased cryptocurrency years before marriage and believe the entire portfolio belongs to that spouse alone. Sometimes one spouse suspects that cryptocurrency exists but has no idea where the other spouse keeps it.
The practical challenges can seem just as significant as the legal ones. Cryptocurrency can move between centralized exchanges and private wallets. An investor can exchange one digital asset for another, participate in decentralized finance, or accumulate hundreds of transactions over several years. The portfolio’s value may also change significantly between the filing of the divorce and the final property division.
These characteristics sometimes lead people to assume that cryptocurrency is invisible, impossible to trace, or beyond the reach of a divorce court. That assumption overlooks the financial trail that digital assets can create. Exchange records, bank transfers, tax documents, electronic evidence, and blockchain transactions may all provide useful information.
The technology may be relatively new, but the central legal questions are familiar. Maine courts still need to identify the property, classify it, determine its value, and divide the marital estate in a just manner. Maine’s existing property-division law provides the starting point.
How Maine Divorce Law Applies to Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets
Maine’s Marital-Property Rules Apply to Digital Assets
Maine’s property-division statute, 19-A M.R.S. § 953, defines marital property as property that either spouse acquires after marriage and before a decree of legal separation, subject to several statutory exceptions. The statute also presumes that property acquired during marriage is marital regardless of whether one spouse holds title individually.
That rule matters with cryptocurrency because one spouse often controls the account or wallet. Suppose a husband uses employment income during the marriage to purchase Bitcoin through an exchange account in his name. His exclusive control over the account does not, by itself, make the Bitcoin nonmarital.
After classifying the property, the court sets apart each spouse’s nonmarital property and divides the marital property in proportions it considers just. Maine therefore uses equitable distribution rather than automatically requiring an equal division.
Section 953 directs the court to consider all relevant factors, including each spouse’s contribution to acquiring marital property, the value of property set apart to each spouse, their economic circumstances when the division takes effect, and economic abuse. Cryptocurrency becomes part of that broader financial analysis rather than a separate category with its own divorce rules.
Cryptocurrency Can Be Marital, Nonmarital, or Both
Classification becomes more complicated when a spouse acquired cryptocurrency before the marriage or used property that the spouse claims was nonmarital to acquire it.
Section 953 excludes several categories from marital property, including property acquired before marriage, property acquired by gift or inheritance, property acquired in exchange for certain nonmarital property, property acquired after a decree of legal separation, and property excluded by a valid agreement.
A cryptocurrency portfolio can contain both marital and nonmarital interests. Someone might enter a marriage owning two Bitcoin, purchase three more during the marriage with employment income, and eventually move all five into the same wallet. Storing the assets together does not necessarily give all five Bitcoin the same legal classification.
Appreciation can add another issue. Section 953(2)(E) generally treats appreciation caused by market forces differently from appreciation attributable to marital funds, marital labor, or certain active management.
In Bolduc v. Getchius, 2025 ME 41, the Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, addressed appreciation of premarital property. Although the case did not involve cryptocurrency, its analysis can help frame disputes over digital assets that one spouse owned before marriage but that increased substantially in value during the marriage.
A Spouse Claiming a Nonmarital Interest Needs Evidence
Maine’s presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital has important practical consequences.
In Nou v. Huot, 2025 ME 44, the Law Court addressed marital and nonmarital property classification under § 953. A spouse who seeks to overcome the marital-property presumption must establish that a statutory exception applies.
That burden can become particularly important with cryptocurrency. A spouse who says, “I owned this crypto before we married,” may need evidence establishing what the spouse owned at the time of marriage and connecting those holdings to the assets that still exist at divorce.
Exchange statements, wallet addresses, transaction histories, bank records, tax documents, and blockchain records may help establish that history. If the spouse repeatedly traded Bitcoin for Ethereum, converted assets into stablecoins, moved them between wallets, and added marital earnings to the portfolio, tracing may become much more difficult.
The complexity of the tracing should match the financial stakes. A relatively small account with a straightforward history may require little more than ordinary account records. A large portfolio involving years of trading and multiple wallets may justify more detailed financial analysis.
Discovery Can Help Locate Cryptocurrency
A spouse does not need to know every wallet address before beginning discovery.
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 108 addresses financial statements in Family Division matters involving property division and other financial issues. Rule 112 allows parties to conduct discovery concerning the disposition of property and debt and makes Rules 26 through 37 available for that discovery.
Traditional financial records often provide the best starting point. Bank statements may show transfers to cryptocurrency exchanges. Tax records, credit-card statements, emails, and exchange records may identify transactions or accounts that warrant further investigation.
Blockchain data can provide another source of information once someone identifies a relevant wallet address. Many blockchains maintain publicly accessible transaction histories, allowing someone with appropriate expertise to follow transfers between addresses. Connecting a particular address to a particular person, however, may require additional evidence.
Discovery should remain focused and proportional. The mere possibility that someone could move cryptocurrency through multiple wallets does not justify an extensive forensic investigation in every divorce. The value at issue, the available records, and evidence of digital-asset activity should guide the scope of the investigation.
Cryptocurrency Creates Unique Valuation Problems
After the parties identify and classify cryptocurrency, they still need to determine its value.
Digital assets can be unusually volatile. A portfolio worth $300,000 during mediation might be worth $240,000 or $360,000 by the time the parties sign an agreement. That creates a practical problem when one spouse keeps the cryptocurrency while the other receives supposedly equivalent property.
One possible solution is an in-kind division. Instead of assigning the entire portfolio to one spouse at a fixed dollar value, the parties can divide specified quantities or percentages of particular assets. Each spouse then bears the later gains or losses on the cryptocurrency received.
An in-kind division will not make sense in every case. When one spouse keeps the cryptocurrency and the other receives an offsetting asset, the parties should clearly establish how and when they will value the cryptocurrency. The pricing source, valuation date, transaction costs, and allocation of market risk can materially affect the fairness of the exchange.
Digital Evidence and Transfers Require Care
Cryptocurrency disputes can also raise evidentiary questions. Maine Rule of Evidence 901 generally requires a party offering electronic evidence to establish that it is what the party claims it to be. Effective November 1, 2026, new Rules 902(13) and 902(14) provide an additional method for authenticating certain electronic records and copied digital data through a qualified person’s certification, without necessarily requiring live testimony from an authentication witness. The rules impose certification and advance-notice requirements. For example, matching digital hash values may help establish that a copied transaction-history file is identical to its original. That can matter when a party relies on screenshots, downloaded transaction histories, wallet records, or blockchain information. These provisions do not independently establish who owns a cryptocurrency wallet, prove that a particular transaction belongs to a spouse, or eliminate other evidentiary requirements, including hearsay rules.
Security presents a different problem. Someone with a private key or seed phrase may have practical control over cryptocurrency stored in a self-custodied wallet. Carelessly sharing that information can put the asset at risk.
Settlement agreements should therefore describe transfers precisely. The agreement may need to identify the type and amount of cryptocurrency, receiving wallet, transfer procedure, deadline, responsibility for fees, and method of confirming completion. For a substantial transfer, the parties may also consider using a small test transaction before sending the remaining assets.
Tax information can matter too. Current market value does not reveal an asset’s cost basis or potential taxable gain. A spouse receiving $100,000 of cryptocurrency may face different future tax consequences from a spouse receiving $100,000 in cash.
Common Cryptocurrency Issues in Maine Divorces
One Spouse Purchased Cryptocurrency During the Marriage
Suppose a husband uses $60,000 of employment income during the marriage to purchase Bitcoin. He keeps the Bitcoin in an exchange account solely in his name, and his wife never participates in the investment decisions.
The account’s title does not decide classification. Because the husband acquired the Bitcoin during the marriage, § 953 presumes that it is marital property. Unless he proves that a statutory exception applies, the court can include the cryptocurrency in the marital estate.
One Spouse Owned Bitcoin Before the Marriage
Assume a wife purchased three Bitcoin several years before marrying and kept them in the same wallet throughout a 10-year marriage. She never added marital money to the wallet or traded the Bitcoin.
Her premarital purchase supports a claim that the Bitcoin is nonmarital. If market forces caused the value to increase substantially, § 953(2)(E) would become important to the appreciation analysis. Records documenting the original purchase, quantity owned at marriage, and continued ownership would help support the claim.
Premarital Cryptocurrency Was Actively Traded
Now consider a husband who enters the marriage with cryptocurrency but spends the next 12 years actively trading Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and other tokens. He also deposits marital earnings into the same accounts.
The current portfolio may contain both marital and nonmarital components. Determining those components could require reconstructing transactions and tracing the sources of the assets that remain. Years of trading and reinvestment can make detailed records especially important.
One Spouse Suspects Missing Cryptocurrency
Suppose a wife remembers substantial transfers from the couple’s checking account to a cryptocurrency exchange, but her husband’s financial statement lists no digital assets. He says he sold everything several years earlier.
That discrepancy does not establish concealment, but it may justify focused discovery. Bank records, exchange statements, tax documents, withdrawal records, and blockchain transactions may show whether the husband sold the assets, spent the proceeds, transferred the cryptocurrency elsewhere, or still controls it.
Cryptocurrency Falls in Value Before the Divorce Ends
Assume the parties negotiate an agreement giving the wife cryptocurrency valued at $200,000 while the husband receives an additional $200,000 from a brokerage account. Before they transfer the assets, the cryptocurrency falls to $140,000.
The agreement’s terms and timing may determine who bears that loss. This example shows why parties should address valuation dates and market risk directly rather than assuming a volatile asset will retain its value until transfer.
Fictional Fact Pattern: A Portland Couple With a Complex Crypto Portfolio
Daniel and Rachel are a fictional couple living in Portland, Maine. They have been married for 13 years. Daniel works in software development, and Rachel works as a physical therapist.
Two years before the marriage, Daniel purchased approximately $20,000 of Bitcoin. He continued investing after the wedding. During the marriage, he used employment income to purchase additional cryptocurrency, traded among several digital assets, transferred coins between exchanges and private wallets, and participated in decentralized-finance transactions.
When Rachel files for divorce, Daniel reports approximately $275,000 in cryptocurrency on his financial statement. Rachel believes the actual value may be significantly higher because Daniel previously discussed substantial gains and because she remembers large transfers from their joint checking account.
The parties begin discovery with conventional financial records. Bank statements reveal transfers to several exchanges. They also obtain exchange transaction histories, tax documents, and information identifying several wallet addresses. The records show that Daniel holds some cryptocurrency on centralized exchanges and stores other assets in private wallets.
The parties then turn to classification. Daniel argues that much of the portfolio remains nonmarital because he began investing before the marriage. Rachel acknowledges his premarital Bitcoin but argues that years of active trading and investments from marital income produced much of the current portfolio.
Daniel can document the Bitcoin he owned when the parties married. He has more difficulty tracing that interest through later trades. The parties must distinguish his original nonmarital property and applicable appreciation from cryptocurrency purchased with marital earnings and other transactions that may affect classification under § 953.
Rather than analyzing every small trade, the parties use financial assistance to reconstruct the significant transactions. The analysis identifies part of the portfolio that Daniel can trace to his premarital holdings and separates later purchases made with marital funds. Several transactions remain disputed.
Valuation creates another challenge. The portfolio increases considerably between the initial financial disclosures and mediation. Both parties recognize that assigning all the cryptocurrency to Daniel based on an old value could distort the overall property division if the market moves again.
Their eventual resolution combines several approaches. Daniel retains his established nonmarital interest. The parties divide some marital cryptocurrency in kind and use current values for other digital assets included in the overall property division.
Their agreement identifies the assets and quantities they will transfer, sets deadlines, allocates transaction fees, requires small test transactions before larger transfers, and requires the parties to provide available cost-basis information.
The scenario illustrates the central point. Cryptocurrency does not replace Maine’s ordinary property-division law, but it can make the work of identifying, tracing, valuing, and transferring property considerably more important.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is cryptocurrency property in a Maine divorce?
Cryptocurrency with economic value can fall within Maine’s property-division framework. Section 953 broadly governs marital property and does not require an asset to exist in traditional physical form.
Is cryptocurrency purchased during marriage marital property?
Maine does presume that property acquired during marriage is marital, subject to the exceptions in § 953. Keeping cryptocurrency in only one spouse’s account or wallet does not automatically make it nonmarital.
What if I owned Bitcoin before getting married?
Property acquired before marriage can remain nonmarital. Records showing when you acquired the cryptocurrency, how much you owned when you married, and what happened to it afterward can become critical if the other spouse disputes its classification.
Can someone hide cryptocurrency in a private wallet?
A private wallet can make cryptocurrency less obvious than money held in a bank account, but it does not necessarily make the asset untraceable. Bank records, exchange withdrawals, tax documents, wallet addresses, and blockchain transactions may help reconstruct what happened.
How can we find cryptocurrency during a divorce?
Discovery may include requests for bank statements, exchange records, tax documents, transaction histories, wallet information, and relevant electronic records. Once the parties identify wallet addresses, blockchain data may provide additional information.
How does a court determine cryptocurrency’s value?
The parties generally need reliable evidence of market value. Because prices can move quickly, the valuation date and pricing source become particularly important when one spouse keeps cryptocurrency and the other receives different property.
Can we divide the cryptocurrency itself?
Yes. The parties may agree to divide specified quantities or percentages of digital assets instead of assigning the entire portfolio to one spouse. Any transfer provisions should address wallet information, security, timing, fees, and confirmation.
What happens if cryptocurrency loses value during the divorce?
Market changes can alter the economics of a proposed property division. Clear valuation provisions or an in-kind division can help establish which spouse bears gains or losses after a particular point.
What about NFTs and other digital assets?
The same basic questions generally apply: who owns the asset, when and how did that person acquire it, what is it worth, and does Maine law classify it as marital or nonmarital? Less-liquid assets may create additional valuation challenges.
Do I need a cryptocurrency expert?
Not necessarily. Straightforward holdings on a major exchange may require little specialized analysis. Expert or forensic assistance can become useful when substantial assets have moved through multiple exchanges, wallets, tokens, or decentralized-finance platforms.
Final Thoughts
Cryptocurrency involves unfamiliar technology, but the central legal issues in a Maine divorce remain familiar. The court must identify the property, determine what is marital and nonmarital, establish reliable values, set apart nonmarital property, and divide the marital estate under 19-A M.R.S. § 953.
Tracking digital assets can make the evidence especially important. Exchange records, wallet histories, blockchain transactions, tax documents, and careful tracing may determine whether the parties properly identify and classify significant property. Volatility and the mechanics of transferring cryptocurrency add another layer to settlement and trial preparation.
The technology should not distract from the underlying financial analysis. When digital assets represent real economic value, careful disclosure, documentation, valuation, and drafting allow Maine’s established property rules to address them fairly and effectively.
About the Author: Damian Turco is the Founder and Managing Partner of Turco Legal and has practiced divorce and family law since 2008.
Damian Turco’s Bio Page | More Blogs from Damian Turco
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Articles on our blog are written at a historical point in time and the information presented accurately reflects the law at the time of the article’s writing. If you’d like to better understand how the law applies to your case, schedule an attorney consultation by calling any of our offices or by clicking the Schedule a Consultation link on this page.