Pulido v. Pereira
234 Cal. App. 4th 1246
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Neighbors sought a private easement across Pereira’s property for access to their own land.
- Pulidos cross-complained for an easement by prescription and other theories; trial focused on prescription claim.
- Pereira blocked Quartz Hill Drive and installed a lock; chain previously accessed the Pulidos’ property.
- Trial court found open, notorious, continuous use for five years; granted permanent injunction in Pulidos’ favor.
- Court concluded Civil Code 1009 does not apply to private prescriptive easement where access is for own property.
- Appeal concerns whether the five-year use was proven and the applicability of Civil Code 1009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Civil Code §1009 bar private prescriptive easement? | Pulidos argue private use falls outside §1009’s public-recreation focus. | Pereira contends §1009 blocks private prescriptive rights when used for recreation. | §1009 does not apply; private prescription controls. |
| Was there substantial evidence of five-year open, notorious, continuous use? | Pulidos and predecessors used Quartz Hill Drive openly for ingress/egress for five years. | Pereira argues the use was not continuous or notorious enough. | Evidence supports five-year prescriptive use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 198 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1984) (prescriptive easement elements: open, notorious, continuous, adverse, five years)
- Bustillos v. Murphy, 96 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. App. 2002) (Civil Code §1009’s public-recreation focus; distinction private vs public use)
- Bustillos v. Murphy (on private-use distinction), 96 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. App. 2002) (reiterates private-use analysis under §1009)
- McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Education, 75 Cal.App.4th 196 (Cal. App. 1999) (statutory construction de novo standard)
- Estate of Griswold, 25 Cal.4th 904 (Cal. 2001) (guidance on interpreting statutory purposes)
- California State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.3d 855 (Cal. App. 1986) (ambiguity in statutory interpretation and extrinsic sources)