His ex-girlfriend is getting his $1million pension fund… they broke up 34 years ago

A decades-old beneficiary arrangement has sparked a fierce legal battle over a Pennsylvania man’s hefty retirement account.

Margaret Losinger, now 68, will inherit nearly $1 million from her ex-boyfriend’s pension plan, but the late man’s brothers are disputing the claim.

Losinger had a relationship with Jeffrey Rolison in the 1980s. In 1987, Rolison named her as the sole beneficiary on a handwritten form — a designation that often takes precedence in a will.

Now Rolison’s brothers, who only recently learned of Losinger’s claim, are taking legal action. Richard, one of Rolison’s brothers, told DailyMail.com: ‘The whole thing was overwhelming.’

This case highlights a growing trend: disputes over who inherits retirement savings due to outdated or incomplete beneficiary forms. As millions of Americans build significant retirement funds, these situations can lead to unexpected windfalls for some and heartache for others.

In 1987, Jeffrey Rolison (pictured) named his ex-girlfriend of 34 years as the sole beneficiary on a handwritten form – a designation that often takes precedence over a will. Now Rolison’s brothers, who only recently learned of Losinger’s claim, are taking legal action

While working at a P&G factory, Rolison signed up for their savings plan. During that first filing in 1987, he named Losinger as his beneficiary. However, their romantic relationship had ended two years earlier

Court documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal describe how Losinger met Rolison while playing Frisbee in their early twenties. The couple moved in together, with Losinger envisioning marriage and children. However, Rolison was not on the same page.

After two years, Losinger, who wanted a family life, ended the relationship and moved away. She married someone else and had children, while Rolison acquired a long-term partner, Mary Lou Murray.

While working at a P&G factory, Rolison signed up for their savings plan. During that first filing in 1987, he named Losinger as his beneficiary. However, their romantic relationship had ended two years earlier.

Losinger claims she “wanted marriage and children,” while “he didn’t.” Rolison never updated the beneficiary designation in his retirement plan.

After Rolison’s death at the age of 59, Richard and his other surviving brother, Brian, became co-trustees of his estate. They were surprised to learn about Losinger’s beneficiary status.

Losinger now stands to inherit Rolison’s entire P&G plan, which has grown to more than $1.15 million. The brothers have fought Losinger and even P&G in court, arguing that the company failed to properly inform Rolison of its beneficiary options.

However, P&G claims that they provided adequate warnings, including online statements and notices of changes to the service provider. One such message read: ‘You have no beneficiary designations online. Any previous beneficiary designations registered with the Plan are retained by P&G but are not visible on this site.”

The brothers claim that this message was unclear and could have been misinterpreted by Rolison. They believe the plan should have defaulted on the estate if a clear beneficiary was not designated.

Despite the arguments, the court ultimately sided with P&G and Losinger.

However, the brothers do not give up and have appealed the decision.

However, P&G claims that they provided adequate warnings, including online statements and notices of changes to the service provider. Despite the arguments, the court ultimately sided with P&G and Losinger

The ordeal has left many wondering how Rolison’s pension plan fell through the cracks.

Benefits attorneys say there is room for improvement in how pension plans handle beneficiary designations. Although plans can better remind participants of old paper forms, the ultimate responsibility lies with employees to keep their information up to date.

This is different from health insurance, where people must confirm their beneficiaries during annual re-enrolment. Without such reminders, retirement plans are more susceptible to neglect, Peter Gulia, an attorney specializing in employee benefits, told WSJ.

This lack of regular updates likely contributed to the confusion in Rolison’s case. He diligently notified the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, naming first his mother and then his partner Murray.

However, he may not have realized that he needed to do the same for his retirement savings.

Because there was no clear beneficiary designated for the retirement account, the court awarded the money to the named beneficiary on file, Losinger. Rolison’s brothers believe this was not his intention and are appealing the decision.

The brothers sold Jeffrey’s BMW collection to pay for funeral services, and they split the life insurance on the workplace and the home.

However, Rolison’s retirement savings are still in escrow, waiting to be distributed.