Opinion by: KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J.
David Kunzie (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside arbitration proceedings on the basis that the trial court erred in finding that a validly formed arbitration agreement existed between Appellant and his former employer, Jack-in-the Box, Inc. (Respondent).
Despite the existence of controverted facts as to whether Appellant signed the arbitration agreement, the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Instead, the trial court found that, by continuing his employment with Respondent with knowledge of Respondent's proposed arbitration agreement, Appellant accepted the arbitration agreement.
On appeal, Appellant argues that the alleged arbitration agreement lacked mutual assent.
REVERSED
Division Four Holds: Appellant's continued employment, without more, did not objectively manifest his intent to be bound to Respondent's proposed arbitration policy. Thus, the trial court's judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if additional facts exist which, in conjunction with Appellant's continued employment, sufficiently demonstrate that Appellant accepted Respondent's arbitration policy to be a new condition of his employment.
George W. Draper III, J., Concurs and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Concurs in separate opinion
THIS SUMMARY IS NOT PART OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT. IT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE READER AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.
Kurt S. Odenwald, Presiding Judge, George W. Draper III, Judge, Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge.