In Patillo v. Norris (1976) 65 Cal. App. 3d 209, a man married a woman in 1942, separated from her in 1949, and without undergoing a divorce, engaged in a marriage ceremony in 1951 with a second woman ignorant of his genuine marital status. ( Id. at p. 213) In 1959, his employer created as an employment benefit a pension fund for the man, with credit for prior union membership. ( Id. at p. 214.) Subsequently, in 1969, he separated from the second woman, and lived alone for three months, after which he lived alternatively (and exclusively) with his wife and the second woman for short periods of time. ( Id. at pp. 213-214.) In 1970, his employer accorded him an insurance policy as an additional employment benefit. ( Id. at pp. 214-215.) Shortly before he died in 1972, he designated a third woman as the beneficiary of his insurance policy and pension benefits. ( Id. at p. 215.) The trial court applied a simple allocation formula to the insurance proceeds and pension benefits, allocating 50 percent to the designated beneficiary, and dividing the remainder equally between the wife and second woman. ( Patillo v. Norris, supra, 65 Cal. App. 3d at p. 217.) The court in Patillo held that this allocation was erroneous and remanded the matter, instructing the trial court to examine each relevant time period of the man's life. ( Id. at pp. 217-219.) To the extent that the benefits accrued during periods in which the man lived separately from his wife and the second woman, they constituted separate property properly distributed in their entirety to the beneficiary; and to the extent that the benefits accrued during periods when he lived with his wife or the second woman, they were properly distributed in equal shares to the beneficiary and (as appropriate) to the wife or the second woman. (Ibid.)