Cited by

W., L.L.C., ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (“The fundamental prerequisite to arbitration is the existence of an actual agreement or contract to arbitrate.”); Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (noting courts should not presume arbitrability without “clear and unmistakable” evidence).

Brake Masters Sys., n.3 ¶ 12 (App. 2003).

Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2003).

Instead, we have rejected any requirement of "a pre-arbitration judicial determination of arbitrability" because Arizona law specifically allows a party to "object to confirmation of the award on the ground that 'the arbitrators exceeded their powers.'" Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 6 (App. 2003) (quoting A.R.S.

-28, ¶¶ 14, 17 (App. 2017) (remanding for an evidentiary hearing to consider whether a party proved its equitable defenses); Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 13 (App. 2005) (collecting cases holding that summary enforcement of a settlement agreement is improper where factual disputes exist regarding the terms of the agreement).

Brake Masters Sys., ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2003).

Moreover, the court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if “the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.” See Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 14

Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 15 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 13 (App. 2001), and Trustmark Ins.

Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 13 (App. 2003); see also Gatz v. Southwest Bank of Omaha, 836 F.2d 1089, 1095 (8th Cir. 1988) (a court must hold an evidentiary hearing if a substantial factual dispute exists 3 Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, this amount is offset by the proceeds from the sales of the properties.

See Crowe v. Hickman’s Egg Ranch, Inc., ¶ 16 (App. 2002); see also Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (holding that any error in trial court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing was waived because the parties did not raise the issue at trial).

of Ariz. v. Stardust Dev., Inc., ¶ 13 (App. 2012) (citing Brake Masters Sys., n.3, ¶ 12 (App. 2003), and Park Imperial, 9 Ariz. App. at 513-14).

§ 12-1502(A) allows a party attempting to arbitrate to seek a court order determining arbitrability and compelling the other party to arbitrate, this section does not require the party attempting to arbitrate to do so.” ¶ 6

Father cites Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Centers, L.L.C., P.3d 1253 (App. 2007), and Brake Masters Systems, P.3d 1081 (App. 2003), both of which concern the appropriateness of evidentiary hearings in determining the existence or terms of an arbitration agreement.

2Defendants assert we should review the superior court’s order denying the Greers’ application to vacate the arbitration award for abuse of discretion citing Brake Masters Systems, n.3, ¶ 12, n.3 (App. 2003) (“Normally, we review a trial court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award for an abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)), however, this court has reviewed a vacatur of an arbitration award de novo.

“[A] trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if ‘the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.’” Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 14, (quoting Ruelas v. Staff Builders Pers.

Brake Masters Systems, , 364 n. 3, ¶ 12, , 1085 n. 3 (App.2003); Park Imperial, Inc. v. E.L.

See Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 15

Brake Masters Sys., , 364 n. 3, ¶ 12, , 1085 n. 3 (App.2003).

2001); see also Brake Masters Sys., ¶¶ 13-14, (trial court should hold evidentiary hearing when genuine issue of material fact exists on existence or terms of arbitration agreement, but court should apply same standard used to determine summary judgment motions in deciding whether any such hearing required); Haynes v.

See, e.g., Brake Masters Sys., ¶ 14 , compare Ohliger v. Carondelet St Mary’s Hosp.

1; see also Brake Masters Sys., , (factual finding is not clearly erroneous if substantial evidence supports it).