Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462

Father filed a Request to Modify Child Support under the Guidelines’ Simplified Procedure seeking a reduction; Mother opposed and requested increase and an evidentiary hearing.
Court set a hearing, ordered exchange of financial documents, and limited the hearing to 15 minutes (scheduled on a busy Tuesday/Wednesday calendar).
At the continued hearing the parties submitted numerous exhibits (Father: 23 exhibits; Mother: 11 exhibits) but the court repeatedly refused to take sworn testimony or allow Father to testify about his business finances.
Mother’s counsel presented a demonstrative chart and oral avowals of income calculations; Father sought to dispute the accuracy of the bank statements and explain his self-employment deductions but was cut off.
The court adopted Mother’s “high side” income calculation ($9,521/month), found Father received income from business and trust, and increased child support and arrears based on that paper review.
The appellate court accepted special-action jurisdiction, vacated the modification order, and remanded for a new hearing because the trial court denied a meaningful opportunity to present sworn testimony and confront adverse evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether court may resolve contested credibility issues on documents and counsel avowals without sworn testimony	Court must allow sworn oral testimony when credibility is material; written papers alone are insufficient	Paper exhibits and counsel argument sufficed given disclosures and case-management constraints	Held: Due process requires opportunity for sworn oral testimony when credibility is contested; trial court erred by deciding on a "paper view"
Whether rigid time limits that preclude meaningful direct and cross-examination violate due process	A 15-minute limit (and refusal to continue) prevented meaningful testimony and confrontation of evidence	Court has broad docket-management discretion and may impose reasonable time limits	Held: Time limits must be flexible; refusing additional time or continuation when adequate testimony is necessary is an abuse of discretion and violates due process

King v. Superior Court (Bauer), 138 Ariz. 147 (1983) (special action jurisdiction appropriate to correct trial-court errors)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (written submissions are inadequate where credibility is at issue; oral hearing required)
Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), 134 Ariz. 177 (1982) (court may not conduct a trial by affidavit when affidavits conflict on crucial facts)
Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301 (1990) (summary judgment improper where credibility determinations are necessary)
Carvalho v. Carvalho, 838 P.2d 259 (Alaska 1992) (vacating child-support judgment where trial court refused live testimony and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Garzon v. D.C. Comm’n on Human Rights, 578 A.2d 1134 (D.C. 1990) (agency cannot make credibility findings from conflicting affidavits without live testimony)
Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1995) (importance of adversarial testing and accuracy when credibility is determinative)