Opinion ID: 1160537
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirement of an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: We consider next the means to be used by the trial court in finding the facts relevant to enforcement of the arbitration agreement. As both parties acknowledge, hearing and determination in the manner ... provided by law for the ... hearing of motions (§ 1290.2) would ordinarily mean the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence, with oral testimony taken only in the court's discretion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2009; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 303(a)(2), 323(a); Strauch v. Eyring, supra, 30 Cal. App.4th at p. 184; Reifler v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal. App.3d 479, 483-484 [114 Cal. Rptr. 356]; Haldane v. Haldane (1962) 210 Cal. App.2d 587, 593 [26 Cal. Rptr. 670].) GWFSC nevertheless maintains that when the declarations and documentary evidence present a material factual dispute as to the existence or enforceability of the arbitration agreement, the trial court must proceed to a summary bench trial of the issues. In cases of this sort, GWFSC insists, the failure to resolve a material issue of fact by an evidentiary hearing is an abuse of discretion. We decline to embrace the broad rule proposed by GWFSC. There is simply no authority for the proposition that a trial court necessarily abuses its discretion, in a motion proceeding, by resolving evidentiary conflicts without hearing live testimony. Nonetheless, we agree that where  as is common with allegations of fraud such as are made here  the enforceability of an arbitration clause may depend upon which of two sharply conflicting factual accounts is to be believed, the better course would normally be for the trial court to hear oral testimony and allow the parties the opportunity for cross-examination. As the trial court here remarked, it's pretty difficult to weigh credibility without seeing the witnesses.