The estate of a late Proctor & Gamble employee is embroiled in a legal battle over his retirement account nearly a decade after his death—with his ex-girlfriend from 35 years ago.
Jeffrey Rolison passed away at 59, a few months short of his planned retirement from his job at P&G. He had been with the company since 1986, opting into the company’s employee profit-sharing and savings plans the following year—and naming his then-girlfriend of nine years, Margaret Losinger (née Sjostedt), as his beneficiary and “cohabitator.”
The couple split up some two years later, with court documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal citing the split as “acrimonious” and Margaret as unfaithful. Margaret, meanwhile, maintains the reason for their split was that she wanted to marry and have children while Jeffrey didn’t. Regardless of the reason for their split, Jeffrey never updated his beneficiary designation for his retirement plan. The account is said to have been worth over $750,000 at the time of Jeffrey’s death and has since appreciated in value.
Estate Claims Breach of Fiduciary Duty
In the years since his death, Jeffrey’s brothers, as co-administrators of his estate, have been fighting the distribution of the retirement account’s assets to Margaret, arguing that P&G breached its fiduciary duty by not properly informing Jeffrey of his beneficiary designation on file with the company. Had he been properly informed that he still had Margaret listed as beneficiary, the estate argues that Jeffrey would have chosen to change it to a family member. As supporting evidence, the estate presented the court with the fact that Jeffrey updated beneficiaries on his other accounts following major life events—for example, he removed his long-term partner Mary Lou Murray as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy following their split.
In their defense, P&G has maintained that they did, in fact, notify Jeffrey on numerous occasions of his beneficiary options, for example, when they switched service providers for the plan, and that “any prior beneficiary designations on file with the plan will be retained by P&G” because he didn’t have any designations on file online (Jeffrey’s designation was on a handwritten form as was done in the olden times).
In April 2024, the federal court held in favor of Margaret, highlighting that communications to Jeffrey regarding his account explicitly included recommendations that Jeffrey review his beneficiary designation. The funds remain in escrow, however, as the estate has appealed the decision.
Margaret May Get A Windfall
The chances of Jeffrey’s estate winning on appeal appear to be slim according to Denise Appleby, CEO of Appleby Retirement Consulting Inc., who thinks that “Margaret will likely get to keep the assets because Jeffery was unmarried at the time of his death and his ex-girlfriend is the beneficiary on record.” As the court mentioned, she said Jeffrey had multiple opportunities to change the beneficiary designation but didn’t. “This is an ERISA plan, and the court doesn’t have the power to override the designation which was made under the terms of the plan,” Appleby explained.
On appeal, “the attorney for Jeffrey’s siblings could argue that he didn’t make the change because he was led to believe that his estate would inherit the account,” opined Appleby, but alas, “that would be pure speculation,” she added.
The conversation then turns to whether retirement plans can better handle beneficiary designations. For example, health insurance plans require yearly re-enrollment with prompts to confirm beneficiaries on file. Absent any legislative initiatives, however, it doesn’t seem likely that Jeffrey’s estate will have any luck overturning the decision on these grounds.
The case serves as an important reminder for clients to review and update their beneficiary designations and estate-planning documents regularly.
