A decades-old beneficiary form has sparked a fierce legal battle over a Pennsylvania man’s sizable retirement account.
Margaret Losinger, now 68, will inherit nearly $1 million from her ex-boyfriend’s retirement plan, but the deceased’s siblings are contesting the claim.
Losinger dated Jeffrey Rolison in the 1980s. In 1987, Rolison named her sole beneficiary in a handwritten form, a designation that often takes priority over a will.
Now, Rolison’s brothers, who recently learned of Losinger’s claim, are taking legal action. Richard, one of Rolison’s brothers, told DailyMail.com: “It’s all been overwhelming.”
This case highlights a growing trend: disputes over who inherits retirement savings due to outdated or incomplete beneficiary forms. As millions of Americans accumulate significant retirement funds, these situations can lead to unexpected gains for some and heartbreak for others.
In 1987, Jeffrey Rolison (pictured) named his ex-girlfriend of 34 years as the sole beneficiary in a handwritten form, a designation that often takes precedence over a will. Now, Rolison’s brothers, who recently learned of Losinger’s claim, are taking legal action.
While working at a P&G plant, Rolison signed up for its savings plan. During that initial registration in 1987, he listed Losinger as his beneficiary. However, their romantic relationship had ended two years earlier.
Court documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal details how Losinger met Rolison while playing Frisbee in his early twenties. The couple moved in together and Losinger envisioned marriage and children. Rolison, however, was not on the same page.
After two years, Losinger, wanting a family life, ended the relationship and moved away. He married someone else and had children, while Rolison had a long-time partner, Mary Lou Murray.
While working at a P&G plant, Rolison signed up for its savings plan. During that initial registration in 1987, he listed Losinger as his beneficiary. However, their romantic relationship had ended two years earlier.
Losinger maintains that she “wanted marriage and children” while “he didn’t.” Rolison never updated the beneficiary designation in her retirement plan.
Following Rolison’s death at age 59, Richard and his other surviving brother, Brian, became co-administrators of his estate. They were surprised to learn of Losinger’s beneficiary status.
Losinger will now inherit the entirety of Rolison’s P&G plan, which has grown to more than $1.15 million. The brothers have been fighting Losinger and even P&G in court, arguing that the company did not adequately inform Rolison of his beneficiary options.
P&G, however, says they provided adequate warnings, including online statements and notifications of service provider changes. One of those messages said: ‘You do not have any beneficiary designations online. P&G will retain any prior beneficiary designations recorded in the Plan, but they will not be viewable on this site.’
The brothers argue that this message was unclear and Rolison could have misinterpreted it. They believe the plan should have gone to the estate if a clear beneficiary had not been named.
Despite the arguments, the court ultimately sided with P&G and Losinger.
The brothers, however, do not give up and have appealed the decision.
P&G, however, says they provided adequate warnings, including online statements and notifications of service provider changes. Despite the arguments, the court ultimately sided with P&G and Losinger.
The ordeal has many wondering how Rolison’s retirement plan failed.
Employee benefits lawyers said there is room for improvement in the way retirement plans handle beneficiary designations. While plans might work better by reminding participants about old paper forms, the ultimate responsibility falls on employees to keep their information up to date.
This is different from health insurance, where annual re-enrollment asks people to confirm their beneficiaries. Without such reminders, retirement plans are more susceptible to being neglected, Peter Gulia, an employee benefits attorney, told the WSJ.
This lack of regular updates likely contributed to the confusion in the Rolison case. He diligently updated the beneficiary of his life insurance, naming first his mother and then his partner Murray.
However, you may not have realized the need to do the same with your retirement savings.
With no clear beneficiary designated for the retirement account, the court awarded the money to the beneficiary named on file, Losinger. Rolison’s brothers believe that was not his intention and are appealing the decision.
The brothers sold Jeffrey’s BMW collection to pay for funeral services and split the life insurance on the workplace and the home.
However, Rolison’s retirement savings are still in escrow, waiting to be distributed.
