The Ex-Girlfriend and the 401(k): A Cautionary Estate Planning Tale

Expert Opinion May 09, 2024 at 02:34 PM
Share & Print

What You Need To Know

  • Clients might assume their retirement accounts will simply pass to the heirs named in their will. Big mistake.
  • A recent court case found that an ex-girlfriend named as a 401(k) beneficiary in 1987 could inherit the account's $754,000 balance.
  • Advisors should work with clients to keep named beneficiaries current on a regular basis.
Robert Bloink and William H. Byrnes

Beneficiary designations are often overlooked and neglected during the estate planning process.

Clients may execute a will or create a trust and simply assume that their retirement accounts will pass to the heirs named in the will or to their trust beneficiaries. In reality, retirement accounts, including 401(k)s and IRAs, are governed by their own set of rules. 

In almost every case, the beneficiary listed on the account is the individual who will inherit the account, regardless of any outside facts. A recent case put this issue in the spotlight when a U.S. district court refused to invalidate a decades-old beneficiary designation and similarly refused to decide that the plan sponsor had violated its fiduciary obligations by allowing the designation to remain in place. 

Advisors should review the case as a warning and a reminder about the importance of updating retirement account beneficiary designations on a regular basis.

401(k) Beneficiary Designations: The Basics

When opening a 401(k), plan participants can designate one or more beneficiaries to inherit the account. If they fail to do so, the account balance will generally be inherited by a surviving spouse. If the participant isn't married, the estate will receive the funds, which will eventually be distributed according to will or intestate succession laws. 

Sometimes, that will happen only after the funds have passed through the probate process.

Of course, these are only the most common inheritance rules when the participant fails to designate a beneficiary. What will happen also depends on the terms of the 401(k) plan documents.

When the participant names a designated beneficiary, that beneficiary will likely receive the funds regardless of any intervening facts. One of the most common mistakes that participants make is failing to change their beneficiary after going through a divorce or ending a relationship.

Inside the Court Case

In Procter and Gamble v. Estate of Jeffrey Rolison, the decedent began participating in the P&G 401(k) in 1987, when he named his then-girlfriend as beneficiary. The couple ended their relationship in 1989, but the decedent never changed his beneficiary designation. As a result, when he died in 2015, his ex-girlfriend received the account balance of about $754,000 as designated beneficiary.

P&G produced evidence to show that, over the years, the company had sent the decedent information about how to change his beneficiary. That information included disclosures about transitioning to an online system in 2007 (it became fully effective in 2015). Those disclosures often recommended reviewing his beneficiary designations.

The decedent's estate alleged that P&G, as plan sponsor, violated its fiduciary obligations by failing to disclose material information to the decedent about the specific identity of his designated beneficiary. Instead, the estate maintained that P&G provided only generic information about beneficiary designations.

The Decision

According to the ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff was required to prove four elements to succeed on the breach of duty claim: (1) P&G had acted in a fiduciary capacity, (2) P&G did not adequately inform the decedent of his beneficiary designation, (3) P&G knew that it had created confusion by that failure to inform and (4) the decedent relied on P&G to his detriment.

The court granted P&G's summary judgment motion, finding that the decedent had logged into his online account multiple times in the intervening years (his original designation in 1987 was made on paper) and must have known that he had not designated a beneficiary through the online system.

The court further found that the decedent knew that he had to take steps to change his beneficiary, knew that he could do so online and failed to make the change. In other words, there was no evidence to show that the decedent was confused or detrimentally relied on any misrepresentation or omission by P&G.

The court also found no evidence that P&G's disclosures over the years had been confusing. The records in the case show that P&G provided many disclosures about his not designating a beneficiary online and, without that designation, the paper designation from 1987 would continue to be valid.

While it is still possible that the decedent intended for his former girlfriend to receive his 401(k) balance, it seems unlikely given the lengths his estate went through to challenge that result. This case should serve as an important reminder that courts will almost always uphold a valid beneficiary designation even if it seems that the decedent would have chosen a different result when alive.

  • Learn more with Tax Facts, the go-to resource that answers critical tax questions with the latest tax developments. Online subscribers get access to exclusive e-newsletters.
  • Discover more resources on finance and taxes on the NU Resource Center.
  • Follow Tax Facts on LinkedIn and join the conversation on financial planning and targeted tax topics.
  • Get 10% off any Tax Facts product just for being a ThinkAdvisor reader! Complete the free trial form or call 859-692-2205 to learn more or get started today.
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center