omitted). The First and Fifth Circuits have been even more explicit about the need to hold an evidentiary hearing before resolving disputed factual questions material to the determination of standing. In Martin v. Morgan Drive Away, Inc., 665 F.2d 598 (5th Cir.1982), the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of standing. The district court based its standing conclusion on its factual finding that plaintiffs agreement with a bank to assign to him the legal claims of his former company was champertous. The court of appeals vacated the district court’s order concluding that the district court erred in making a ruling regarding standing based on its determination of disputed facts without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Id at 602 (<HOLDING>). In Barrett Computer Services, Inc. v. PDA,
holding that the trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of samfords standing to prosecute this action as discussed  samfords standing or its absence is based upon several disputed issues of fact thus a summary disposition of the type made by the trial court was inappropriate holding that at summary judgment hearing trial court erred by considering theory not raised in the pleadings holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue