Pulido v. Pereira
Annotate this CaseThis action started with one of several neighboring property owners establishing an easement for the purpose of access to their properties over land owned by appellant Alfred Robert Pereira, Jr. The neighbors first filed suit in 2007, following Pereira’s purchase of his property in 2006 and subsequent blocking of the piece of the property over which they claimed they had a prescriptive easement by virtue of their use and the use of their predecessors in interest for access to their properties. Respondents the Pulidos were named defendants in the suit by the neighbors, but no allegations of wrongdoing on the Pulidos’ part were included in the complaint. The Pulidos filed a cross-complaint against Pereira, alleging their right to an easement across Pereira’s property on several theories, including an easement by prescription. This appeal involved only the Pulidos’ cross-complaint. The trial court found the Pulidos had satisfied their burden of proving the continuous, open, and notorious use of Quartz Hill Drive for the five-year prescriptive period and granted a permanent injunction against Pereira “from interfering with the PULIDOS use and enjoyment of the easement across PEREIRA’s realty as described and adjudged herein.” Pereira argued there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the Pulidos and their predecessors used the road openly, notoriously, and continuously for a period of five years. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding the evidence was sufficient. The Court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.