In the Matter of the Guardianship of: Donald Raymond Mitchell

3 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

FILED MAY 9, 2023 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
In the Matter of the Guardianship of )
) No. 34236-1-III
DONALD RAYMOND MITCHELL, ) Consolidated witht
)
and )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SEVERAL OTHER SIMILAR CASES )
CONSOLIDATED ON APPEAL.+ )
+ No. 34311-1-III, In re Guardianship of Krista L. Blair; No. 34273-5-III, In re Guardianship of Ernest Bowen; No, 34295-6-III, In re Guardianship of Richard E. Bowers; No. 34288-3-III, In re Guardianship of Cleora K. Boyd; No. 34287-5-III, In re Guardianship of Linda S. Brangwin; No. 34251-4-III, In re Guardianship of David P. Campbell; No. 34303-1-III, In re Guardianship of Anna Carey; No. 34310-3-III, In re Guardianship of Jared Collier; No. 34297-2-III; In re Guardianship of Carisa M. Cornelius; No. 34248-4-III, In re Guardianship of Christopher Dean; No. 34289-1-III, In re Guardianship of Sarah DeMary; No. 34281-6-III, In re Guardianship of Catherine Desjardins; No. 34284-1-III, In re Guardianship of Steven Eberhart; No. 34247-6-III, In re Guardianship of Aaron Cory Eisenman; No. 34300-6-III, In re Trust of Minor Portia Elvidge; No. 34309-0-III, In re Guardianship of Lynn Fairbanks; No. 34253-1-III, In re Guardianship of Michael Fenske; No. 34272-7-III, In re Guardianship of Marlo Foster; No. 34294-8-III, In re Guardianship of Marlene Friesen; No. 34282-4-III, In re Guardianship of Alejandro Garcia; No. 34267-1-III, In re Guardianship of Ron Gehring; No. 34258-1-III, In re Guardianship of Thomas Getchell; No. 34296-4-III, In re Special Needs Trust of Jessica Harmon; No. 34237-9-III, In re Guardianship of Bart Harrington; No. 34299-9-III, In re Guardianship of Robert D. Harris; No. 34290-5-III, In re Est. of Rex Lee Hartley; No. 34256-5-III, In re Guardianship of Teresa C. Higgins; No. 34238- 7-III, In re Guardianship of Michaele Hood; No. 34242-5-III, In re Guardianship of Marjorie K. Hopper; No. 34269-7-III, In re Guardianship of Connie L. House; No.

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
2
SIDDOWAY, J. — Hallmark Care Services, Inc. and Lori Petersen assign error to
two sets of judgments and orders in these appeals. The appeals were commenced with
their notices of appeal of 76 judgments dated January 19, 2016, that were entered against
34241-7-III, In re Guardianship of Bertha L. Jenkins; No. 34255-7-III, In re
Guardianship of Robert E. Loss; No. 34271-9-III, In re Guardianship of June I. Love;
No. 34279-4-III, In re Guardianship of Bella Mally; No. 34301-4-III, In re Guardianship
of Helen Martin; No. 34259-0-III, In re Guardianship of Murphy McCoy; No. 34265-4-
III, In re Guardianship of Margaret McDirmid; No. 34260-3-III, In re Guardianship of
Malcolm D. McLellan; No. 34240-9-III, In re Guardianship of Carl McMorris; No.
34275-1-III, In re Guardianship of Bernetta Melton; No. 34250-6-III, In re
Guardianship of Thomas Miller, Jr.; No. 34268-9-III, In re the Guardianship of Sharon
Westerman Moore; No. 34266-2-III, In re Guardianship of Gustavo Morales; No. 34264-
6-III, In re Guardianship of Ruth Morales; No. 34302-2-III, In re Guardianship of
Rosalind Elena Morris; No. 34304-9-III, In re Guardianship of Clayton Nalley; No.
34285-9-III, In re Guardianship of Joseph H. Naylor; No. 34305-7-III, In re
Guardianship of Louise L. Nichols; No. 34308-1-III, In re Guardianship of H. Kurt
Olson; No. 34276-0-III, In the Guardianship of Barbara A. Oppegaard; No. 34244-1-III,
In re Guardianship of Lewis Palmer; No. 34293-0-III, In re Guardianship of Sharon
Louise Pitner; No. 34278-6-III, In re Guardianship of Lucas F. Rivero; No. 34270-1-III,
In re Guardianship of Holly Mae Sanford; No. 34262-0-III, In re Guardianship of Janet
Lynn Shaw; No. 34291-3-III, In re Nehemiah Daniel Slater; No. 34307-3-III, In re
Guardianship of Judd Smelcer; No. 34286-7-III, In re Guardianship of Joan S. Smith;
No. 34283-2-III, In re Guardianship of Leslie Stanich; No. 34239-5-III, In re
Guardianship of Kristen Patrice Sternberg; No. 34245-0-III, In re Guardianship of Nanci
Jo Stocker; No. 34249-2-III, In re Guardianship of Elvella Storrud; No. 34254-9-III, In
re Guardianship of Margaret L. Sullivan; No. 34261-1-III, In re Guardianship of Jared
Trimble; No. 34257-3-III, In re Guardianship of Robert W. Tuckerman; No. 34274-3-III,
In re Guardianship of Arthur Underwood; No. 34263-8-III, In re Guardianship of Betty
Vingo; No. 34246-8-III, In re Guardianship of Donna Vogel; No. 34298-1-III, In re
Guardianship of Dawn Wesselman; No. 34280-8-III, In re Guardianship of Ralph Carl
White; No. 34320-1-III, In re Guardianship of Jeffrey R. Williams; No. 34252-2-III, In re
Guardianship of Walter L. Withers; No. 34292-1-III, In re Guardianship of Mary E.
Wright; No. 34277-8-III, In re Guardianship of Linda Zauner; No. 34243-3-III, In re
Guardianship of James Zingale.

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
3
them and in favor of Spokane County as contempt sanctions (the contempt judgments).
After the superior court vacated the contempt judgments on its own motion in September
2019 and then denied Hallmark’s and Petersen’s requests for awards of costs, Hallmark
and Petersen appealed the cost orders, which this court treated as amending the 2016
notices of appeal. Representative copies of the original and amended notices of appeal
with the challenged contempt judgment and cost order are attached in an appendix
(Ex. A).
Also before us is a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot, which was filed by an
attorney for Spokane County’s Guardianship Monitoring Program.
We dismiss the appeals of the contempt judgments as moot. We affirm the trial
court’s orders denying Hallmark’s and Petersen’s requests for cost awards.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After Lori Petersen, a certified professional guardian, was disciplined by the
Certified Professional Guardianship Board with a 12-month suspension, review was
initiated in Spokane County Superior Court of guardianships in which two certified
professional guardianship agencies (CPGAs) by which she had been employed—
Hallmark Care Services, Inc. d/b/a Castlemark Guardianship and Trusts, and Hallmark
Care Services, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Guardianship and Professional Services (collectively
Hallmark)—were serving as court-appointed guardians. In re Guardianship of Holcomb,

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
4
No. 33356-6-III, slip op. at 4, 7-8 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2018) (unpublished).1 The
Hallmark CPGAs and Petersen were removed as guardians, and in May and June 2015
Hallmark and/or Petersen filed notices of appeal in over 120 guardianships. They
challenged the court’s appointment of a special master, its removal of them as guardians,
and judgments entered against them for the cost of guardians ad litem in the cases in
which they were removed. Id. at 16-17. The appeals were consolidated, with
Guardianship of Holcomb serving as the anchor case.
In February 2016, Hallmark and Petersen filed this second set of appeals, seeking
review of contempt judgments entered against them in 76 guardianship matters. After
Hallmark’s and Petersen’s removals as guardian, the superior court had ordered them to
file accountings. When they failed to do so in the 76 cases, the court entered a $228
judgment as a contempt sanction in each case. Appeal of the contempt judgments was
stayed pending a decision and issuance of the mandate in Holcomb.
Early in the Holcomb appeal, a Spokane County deputy prosecutor moved for
permission to appear as amicus curiae for Spokane County’s Guardianship Monitoring
Program, an arm of the county’s superior court administrator’s office (hereafter “the
Monitoring Program”). He contended that the individual guardianships lacked the funds
1 Available at https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/333566_unp.pdf.

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
5
to defend the court’s orders. The motion was granted by our commissioner, who ruled
that the prosecutor’s participation as special amicus would assist this court within the
meaning of RAP 10.6(a). In the same ruling, our commissioner held that orders
removing the Hallmark CPGAs as guardians were not appealable by them because the
CPGAs were not aggrieved parties.
This court’s opinion filed in Guardianship of Holcomb in October 2018 reversed
all of the judgments imposing guardian ad litem fees against Hallmark and Petersen,
concluding that the judgments were entered without affording Hallmark and Petersen due
process. The court’s reasons and more of the underlying facts are recounted in the
opinion in that first appeal. Following remand, Spokane County abandoned its earlier
effort to recover guardian ad litem fees from Hallmark and Petersen.
Following our decision in Guardianship of Holcomb and issuance of the mandate,
notification to the parties in this appeal of a briefing schedule prompted the deputy
prosecutor who had served as special amicus to seek leave under RAP 7.2(e) for the
Spokane County Superior Court to dismiss the contempt judgments on its own motion.
The prosecutor’s RAP 7.2(e) motion was supported by a declaration from then-superior
court presiding Judge Harold D. Clarke III, in which Judge Clarke explained:
6. Commissioner [Steven] Grovdahl issued sanctions to be
[paid] to Spokane County at a rate of $3.00 a day for every day [Petersen]
and her guardianship agencies failed to perform accountings in each

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
6
Guardianship. Commissioner Grovdahl thereafter entered judgment in each
of the Guardianships referenced in Attachment “A.”
7. Appellant never performed the accountings.
. . . .
9. Having reviewed the issues in this case I am at this time
respectfully requesting this Court to grant the Superior Court Jurisdiction
pursuant to RAP 7.2 to enter an order vacating the orders imposing
sanctions on Appellant.
10. The reason for vacating the orders at this time is that the
sanctions were originally imposed to coerce Appellants to perform their
legal obligations in preparing accountings in each of the Guardianships for
which she was removed in the summer of 2015.
11. Civil Contempt Sanctions can be imposed only as long as it is
possible for a party to purge themselves of the contempt by performing the
Court’s directions. See In Re King v. Department of Social and Health
Services, 110 Wn.2d 793, 804, 756 P.2d 793 (1988); United States v.
Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 103 S. Ct. 1548, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983).
12. Since Appellant and her businesses have not yet had control
over the estates in question for a number of years, she would not presently
be in a position to provide accurate accountings at this stage. Moreover,
any accountings prepared at this point would be of no value to the present
Guardians. It is therefore pointless to pursue sanctions at this juncture.
13. A copy of the Superior Court’s proposed order vacating the
judgments imposing sanctions in these matters which the Court proposes to
enter after a presentment hearing as soon as practical is attached hereto.
Mot. to Permit Super. Ct. to Enter an Ord., Ex. 2, Decl. of Harold D. Clarke, III at 2-4, In
re Guardianship of Mitchell, No. 34236-1-III (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2019) (on file with
court). Our commissioner granted the motion in a letter ruling on August 9, 2019.
The superior court’s proposed order vacated its October 2015 order imposing
sanctions and the resulting judgments. Hallmark and Petersen filed a response in the trial

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
7
court in which they agreed that the orders and judgments should be vacated. But they
objected to the proposed order’s characterization of the order imposing sanctions as
“lawful” and to its characterization of the underlying claims in the case as being “fully
resolved.” E.g., Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 27972-27974. Hallmark and Petersen also filed a
declaration with the trial court identifying a total of $2,558.50 in statutory attorney fees
and other amounts that they asked be awarded to them as costs.2
Presentment of the proposed orders vacating the contempt judgments took place
before Judge Clarke on September 13, 2019. He entered orders vacating the October
2016 orders imposing sanctions and resulting judgments at that time, but took the cost
issue under advisement.
On September 23, 2019, Judge Clarke entered an “Order Re: Statutory Fees and
Costs” that denied Hallmark’s and Petersen’s requests for costs. He determined that
neither the superior court nor the Monitoring Program—against whom Hallmark and
Petersen sought to recover the costs—were parties to the guardianship cases. He also
determined that if Hallmark and Petersen were parties, they did not prevail in any
substantive way because the court had vacated the contempt sanctions on its own motion.
2 This amount consisted of $1,306.80 for “Copies, LAR0.7 Motion, Motion to
waive fees, Motion for Stay 8712 copies x $.15 (22 service parties, 76 separate cases),”
$100.00 for “Mailing Costs (22 service parties),” $290.00 for “Filing Fee - Court of
Appeals,” $196.00 for “Transcription Costs - Statement of Arrangments [sic] (paid to Ct.
Reporter),” and $665.70 for “Current motion 4438 x .[1]5 = 665.70.” CP at 27983.

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
8
After the superior court vacated the contempt orders and judgments, but before
Hallmark and Petersen filed their amended notices of appeal, the Monitoring Program
moved to dismiss this appeal as moot. Hallmark and Petersen opposed the motion. It
was referred to the panel for decision. Hallmark and Petersen timely filed amended
notices of appeal of the cost orders.
ANALYSIS
I. APPEAL OF THE JUDGMENTS IMPOSING CONTEMPT SANCTIONS IS MOOT
The Monitoring Program moved to dismiss these appeals as moot, arguing that
since the superior court has vacated the orders imposing sanctions and resulting
judgments, this court can no longer provide effective relief. It cites State v. Gentry for
the propositions that “[o]rdinarily, this Court will not consider a question that is purely
academic,” and, “A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.”
125 Wn.2d 570, 616, 888 P.2d 1105 (1995).
Hallmark and Petersen argue that dismissal is unwarranted for two reasons: the
Monitoring Program lacks standing to bring the motion to dismiss, since it is neither a
party nor has it been recognized as amicus curiae in this appeal, and there is a matter—
specifically, their requests for costs—that has not yet been addressed. Hallmark and
Petersen also move to strike the attachments to the Monitoring Program’s motion to
dismiss, which they argue are not part of the trial or appellate record in this matter.
On the issue of standing, the motion to dismiss acknowledged that the deputy

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
9
prosecutor filing the motion had been granted special amicus statute in different but
related appeals. It pointed out that this court had continued to give the deputy prosecutor
notice of these appeals, and evidently had not given notice to the individual
guardianships. According to the certificate of mailing attached to Hallmark’s and
Petersen’s amended notices of appeal, they directed copies of those notices to only the
deputy prosecutor. See, e.g., Appendix, Ex. B. This court’s amended perfection letter
dated November 19, 2019, was addressed to only two lawyers: the lawyer for Hallmark
and Petersen, and the deputy prosecutor. The amended perfection letter provided that
“[t]he Amicus Curiae Respondent’s brief is due in this court 30 days after service of the
appellant’s brief.” Letter, In re Guardianship of Miller, No. 34236-1-III (Wash. Ct. App.
Nov. 19, 2019) (boldface omitted) (available from court).
Amicus curiae status may be granted by motion or on the court’s request.
RAP 10.6. The motion for leave to file an amicus brief may be filed with the brief.
RAP 10.6(b). “The appellate court may ask for an amicus brief at any stage of review.”
RAP 10.6(c). The amended perfection letter sent to counsel in November 2019 implicitly
granted the deputy prosecutor’s request to file the motion to dismiss and authorized his
participation in these appeals as special amicus.
Turning to the motion to strike, RAP 17.4(f) directs a person who files a motion to
file all supporting papers with its motion. A motion to dismiss an appeal as moot will

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
10
generally be supported by evidence that is not part of the appellate record. Unlike
attachments to briefs that are relevant to the substance of errors assigned on appeal,
evidentiary support for a motion to dismiss an appeal need not be added to the appellate
record.
Hallmark and Petersen contend this appeal should not be dismissed as moot
because they objected to the trial court’s basis for vacating its contempt orders and
judgments and because this court can still meaningfully review the order denying their
requests for awards of costs.
These appeals are moot with respect to the contempt judgments, the original object
of the appeals. “A vacated judgment has no effect,” and “[t]he rights of the parties are
left as though the judgment had never been entered.” In re Marriage of Leslie, 112
Wn.2d 612, 618, 772 P.2d 1013 (1989). Hallmark and Petersen objected to the trial
court’s reasons for vacating the orders and judgments, arguing that they should have been
vacated because the underlying court order that required the accountings to be filed was
not lawful. E.g., Rep. of Proc. (Sept. 13, 2019) at 53, 55. They explained that the
purpose of their response in opposition to the proposed orders was to make a record that
they disagreed that the trial court had a lawful basis for ordering the accountings.
Id. at 53, 55. That record has been made. This court can offer no other effective relief.
The appeal is not moot with respect to the orders denying Hallmark’s and

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
11
Petersen’s requests for awards of costs, because effective relief can be granted: if they
successfully argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests, we can remand for
entry of cost awards.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. We
dismiss review of Hallmark’s and Petersen’s appeals of the contempt judgments. We
deny the motion to dismiss their appeals of the cost orders.
II. THE SUPERIOR COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD
COSTS
The superior court denied Hallmark’s and Petersen’s requests for costs after
concluding (1) neither the superior court nor the Monitoring Program are “parties” to the
underlying proceedings; and (2) even if Hallmark and Petersen are parties, they are not
“prevailing parties” because the superior court vacated the contempt orders and
judgments on its own motion.
We review a decision denying costs for abuse of discretion. Fluke Cap. & Mgmt.
Servs. Co. v. Richmond, 106 Wn.2d 614, 625, 724 P.2d 356 (1986); Prosser Hill Coal. v.
County of Spokane, 176 Wn. App. 280, 292, 309 P.3d 1202 (2013). Discretion is abused
when its exercise is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable grounds or reasons.
T.S. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 157 Wn.2d 416, 423, 138 P.3d 1053 (2006). A discretionary
decision is based on untenable grounds if the record does not support the court’s findings;
it is made for untenable reasons if the court applies the wrong legal standard or the facts

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
12
do not satisfy the correct standard; and it is manifestly unreasonable if, based on the facts
and correct standard, it is outside the range of acceptable choices. In re Parentage of
Schroeder, 106 Wn. App. 343, 349, 22 P.3d 1280 (2001).
A. RCW 4.84.010, 4.84.030, and 4.84.090: a “prevailing party” is one
who recovers an affirmative judgment in his or her favor
Hallmark and Petersen’s argument on the merits begins with RCW 4.84.030,
which provides that “[i]n any action in the superior court . . . the prevailing party shall be
entitled to his or her costs and disbursements.” “[T]he term ‘prevailing party’ is not
defined in the same manner in every statute.” AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v.
Lewis, 180 Wn.2d 389, 394, 325 P.3d 904 (2014). Determining who is a prevailing party
“‘depends upon the extent of the relief afforded the parties.’” Prosser Hill Coal., 176
Wn. App. at 293 (quoting Riss v. Angel, 131 Wn.2d 612, 633, 934 P.2d 669 (1997));
Durland v. San Juan County, 174 Wn. App. 1, 25, 298 P.3d 757 (2012).
“In general, a prevailing party is one who receives an affirmative judgment in his
or her favor.” Riss, 131 Wn.2d at 633. This is the case for RCW 4.84.010 and RCW
4.84.030, and seemingly RCW 4.84.090 as well. Burman v. State, 50 Wn. App. 433, 445,
749 P.2d 708 (1988) (RCW 4.84.030); Stout v. State, 60 Wn. App. 527, 528, 803 P.2d
1352 (1991) (RCW 4.84.010); see State ex rel. Lemon v. Coffin, 52 Wn.2d 894, 896-97,
332 P.2d 1096 (1958) (stating “By the terms of RCW 4.84.030, the prevailing party is
entitled as a matter of right . . . to other specific items as provided in RCW 4.84.090.”

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
13
(emphasis added)).
Hallmark and Petersen did not receive affirmative judgments in their favor,
so the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award them costs under
RCW 4.84.010, .030, and .090.
B. RCW 4.84.060: “Defendant” eligibility for costs
When a cost statute’s prevailing party determination does not depend on receipt of
an affirmative judgment, the determination turns on “whether the claimant meets the
conditions of the specific statute” that authorizes the costs. AllianceOne, 180 Wn.2d at
394. Hallmark and Petersen also claim entitlement to costs under RCW 4.84.060.
RCW 4.84.060 provides, “In all cases where costs and disbursements are not allowed to
the plaintiff, the defendant shall be entitled to have judgment in his or her favor for the
same.” (Emphasis added.) Chapter 4.84 RCW does not define “plaintiff” or
“defendant.” The ordinary meaning of “plaintiff” is “[t]he party who brings a civil suit in
a court of law”; the ordinary meaning of “defendant” is “[a] person sued in a civil
proceeding or accused in a criminal proceeding.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1391, 528
(11th ed. 2019).
Hallmark and Petersen characterize the superior court as having brought 76
actions against them, making the superior court a “plaintiff” and making them
“defendants” within the meaning of RCW 4.84.060. But the superior court plainly did

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
14
not bring a civil suit; in entering the contempt judgments, it was exercising its authority
as a court to “impose a sanction for contempt of court under [chapter 7.21 RCW].”
RCW 7.21.020. Hallmark and Petersen were plainly not being sued in a civil proceeding
or accused in a criminal proceeding; they were being sanctioned as alleged contemnors.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award Hallmark and
Petersen costs under RCW 4.84.060.
C. RCW 4.84.250 and RCW 4.84.270: in “actions for damages,” a
defendant is a prevailing party only if there is an “entry of judgment”
under which the plaintiff “recovers” nothing or less than was offered
in settlement
Hallmark and Petersen also invoke RCW 4.84.250, the small claims statute, under
which, as of 2019, a prevailing party can be taxed and allowed a reasonable attorney fee
as part of the costs, “in any action for damages where the amount pleaded by the
prevailing party as hereinafter defined” is less than $10,000. (Emphasis added.)
RCW 4.84.270 provides that “[t]he defendant, or party resisting relief” shall be deemed
the prevailing party for purposes of RCW 4.84.250 where “the plaintiff, or party seeking
relief in an action for damages” recovers nothing, or the same or less than the amount
offered it in settlement. (Emphasis added.) In its controlling decision in AllianceOne,
the Washington Supreme Court held that “[w]ithout an entry of judgment by the court,
there is no recovery and there can be no prevailing party under RCW 4.84.250 and .270.”
180 Wn.2d at 396. AllianceOne holds that for a defendant or party resisting relief to

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
15
recover reasonable attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250, it must show “(1) the damages
sought were equal to or less than $10,000, (2) [the defendant or party resisting relief] was
deemed the prevailing party, and (3) there was an entry of judgment.” Id. at 398.
Because AllianceOne had voluntarily dismissed its collection action against Lewis, the
Supreme Court held that Lewis failed the second and third requirements. Id. at 399.
These cases plainly did not involve an “action for damages”; they involved the
imposition of remedial sanctions. See RCW 7.21.030. In addition, AllianceOne compels
the conclusion that where the superior court vacated the contempt judgments on its own
motion, there was no entry of judgment and no prevailing party. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion by refusing to award Hallmark and Petersen a reasonable attorney fee
under RCW 4.84.250 and .270.
D. RCW 4.84.170: County liability where private parties would be liable
RCW 4.84.170 provides in relevant part that “[i]n all actions prosecuted . . . in the
name and for the use of any county . . . the . . . county shall be liable for costs in the same
case and to the same extent as private parties.” (Emphasis added.) Similar to the
inapplicability of RCW 4.84.060, the court’s imposition of a remedial sanction for
contempt is plainly not an “action prosecuted in the name and for the use of [the]
county.” Even if it were, Hallmark and Petersen would have to be able to point to the
basis on which a private party would be liable for costs “in the same case and to the same

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
16
extent,” which they fail to do.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award Hallmark and
Petersen costs under RCW 4.84.170.
E. RCW 4.84.080: Not a cost authorization provision
RCW 4.84.080 does not authorize an award of costs but merely sets the statutory
attorney fee amount. This section “is given force [only] in the context of related rules.”
AllianceOne, 180 Wn.2d at 394.
F. Due process
Finally, Hallmark and Petersen recount acts of alleged judicial misconduct below
that they contend amount to violations of due process. The alleged acts and violations are
untethered to any reasoned argument for costs that was advanced in the superior court. A
party is not entitled to an award of costs as a matter of due process; recovery of costs is a
matter of substance, not procedure, and “is purely a matter of statutory regulation.”
Platts v. Arney, 46 Wn.2d 122, 128, 278 P.2d 657 (1955) (citing State ex rel. Fosburgh v.
Ronald, 25 Wn.2d 276, 277, 170 P.2d 865 (1946)). We have reviewed and rejected all of
the statutory bases on which Hallmark and Petersen claim to be entitled to costs. Their
“‘naked castings into the constitutional seas are not sufficient to command judicial
consideration and discussion.’” State v. Johnson, 179 Wn.2d 534, 558, 315 P.3d 1090
(2014) (quoting State v. Blilie, 132 Wn.2d 484, 493 n.2, 939 P.2d 691 (1997)).

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
17
We dismiss the appeals of the contempt judgments as moot. We affirm the trial
court’s orders denying Hallmark’s and Petersen’s requests for cost awards.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
Siddoway, J.
WE CONCUR:
Lawrence-Berrey, A.C.J.
Staab, J.

No. 34236-1-IT]
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

Appendix

Appendix

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Appendix
Guardianship of:
Last Name First Name Trial Court # COA #
Blair Krista L. 10-4-01235-6 343111
Bowen Ernest 97-4-00967-9 342735
Bowers Richard 02-4-00989-3 342956
Boyd Cleora K. 12-4-01327-8 342883
Brangwin Linda S. 00-4-9437-6 342875
Campbell David P. 11-4-00044-5 342514
Carey Anna 08-4-00665-6 343031
Collier Jared 10-4-01013-2 343103
Cornelius Carisa M. 05-4-00548-5 342972
Dean Christopher 06-4-01476-8 342484
Demary Sarah 08-4-01645-7 342891
Desjardins Catherine 10-4-00727-1 342816
Eberhart Steven 12-4-00510-1 342841
Eisenman Aaron Cory 07-4-00293-8 342476
Elvidge Portia 06-4-00102-0 343006
Fairbanks Lynn 10-4-00531-7 343090
Fenske Michael 11-4-04556-6 342531
Foster Marlo 95-4-01412-9 342727
Friesen Marlene 02-4-00384-4 342948
Garcia Alejandro 11-4-00300-2 342824
Gehring Ron 01-4-00294-7 342671
Getchell Thomas 01-4-01342-6 342581
Harmon Jessica 03-4-00764-3 342964
Harrington Bart 13-4-00268-1 342379
Harris Robert D. 05-4-01384-4 342999
Hartley Rex Lee NKA Jonathan Hartley 01-4-00821-0 342905
Higgins Teresa C. nka Teresa Horan 12-4-00250-1 342565
Hood Michaele 13-4-00267-3 342387
Hopper Margorie K. 12-4-00511-9 342425
House Connie L. 12-4-01004-0 342697
Jenkins Bertha L. 12-4-00690-5 342417
Loss Robert E. 02-4-01201-1 342557
Love June 94-4-00022-7 342719
Mally Bella 08-4-00968-0 342794
Martin Helen 06-4-01260-9 343014
McCoy Murphy 12-4-00405-8 342590
McDirmid Margaret 12-4-00964-5 342654
McLellan Malcom D. 97-4-01092-8 342603
McMorris Carl 12-4-01005-8 342409
Melton Bernetta 97-4-01239-4 342751
Miller Thomas 05-4-01226-1 342506
Mitchell Donald Raymond *** 00-4-09873-4 342361
Moore Sharon Westerman 14-4-00950-1 342689
Morales Gustavo 12-4-01459-2 342662
Morales Ruth 12-4-00610-7 342646

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Appendix
Guardianship of:
Last Name First Name Trial Court # COA #
Morris Rosalind Elena 07-4-00944-4 343022
Nalley Clayton 09-4-00820-7 343049
Naylor Joseph H. 12-4-00677-8 342859
Nichols Louise. L. 09-4-01110-1 343057
Olson H. Kurt 10-4-00513-9 343081
Oppengaard Barbara A. 03-4-01220-5 342760
Palmer Lewis 08-4-00098-4 342441
Pitner Sharon Louise 88-4-01012-1 342930
Rivero Lucas F. 07-4-01357-3 342786
Sanford Holly **** 92-4-00006-9 342701
Shaw Janet Lynn 96-4-01378-3 342620
Slater Nehemiah Daniel 02-4-01155-3 342913
Smelcer Judd 09-4-01453-3 343073
Smith Joan S. 12-4-00998-0 342867
Stanich Leslie 12-4-00381-7 342832
Sternberg Kristen Patrice 12-4-01415-1 342395
Stocker Nanci Jo 07-4-00756-5 342450
Storrud Elvella 06-4-01226-9 342492
Sullivan Margaret L. 12-4-00181-4 342549
Trimble Jared 12-4-00509-7 342611
Tuckerman Robert W. 12-4-00311-6 342573
Underwood Arthur 98-4-00390-3 342743
Vingo Betty 12-4-00595-0 342638
Vogel Donna 10-4-01437-5 342468
Wesselman Dawn 08-4-00910-8 342981
White Ralph Carl 09-4-00282-9 342808
Williams Jeffery R. 88-4-00487-2 343201
Withers Walter L. 04-4-00274-7 342522
Wright Mary E. 02-4-00316-0 342921
Zauner Linda 06-4-01018-5 342778
Zingale James 09-4-00704-9 342433

No. 34236-1-IT]
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

Appendix

Exhibit A

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
FILED March 14, 2016 Court of Appeals Division III State of Washington
1
2
3
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
FILED
1. Donald R. Mitchell
04-09873-4
FEB 1 1 2016
2. Bart Harrington
13-04-00268-1
3. Michaele Hood
13-04-00267-3
Timothy W. Fitzgerald SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
4. Kirsten P Sternberg
12-04-01415-1
5. Carl McMorris
12-04-01005-8
6. Bertha L Jenkins
12-04-00690-5
7. Marjorie K Hopper
12-04-00511-9
8. James Zingale
09-04-00704-9
9. Lewis Palmer
08-04-00098-4
10. Nanci Jo Stocker
07-04-00756-5
11. Aaron Corey Eisenman
07-04-00293-8
13
12. Christopher Dean
06-04-01476-8
13. Elvella Storrud
06-04-01226-9
14 15
14. Thomas Miller
05-04-01226-1
16
16. Robert E Loss
02-04-01201-1
17
17. Thomas Getchell
97-04-01092-8
19. Janet L Shaw
96-04-01378-3
18 19 20
20. Ron Gehring
01-04-00294-7
21. Jonathan Hartley
01-04-00821-0
22. Mary E Wright
02-04-00316-0
21 22
23. Marlene Friesen
02-04-00384-4
24. Richard E. Bowers
02-04-00989-3
25. Jessica Harmon
03-04-00764-3
23
26. Carisa M. Cornelius
05-04-00548-5
Page 1 of 6
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12
15. Walter L Withers
04-04-00274-7
01-04-01342-6
18. Malcolm McLellan

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
-
-
24
25
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
27. Robert D Harris
05-04-01384-4
28. Portia Elvidge
06-04-00102-0
29. Helen Martin
06-04-01260-9
30
30. Rosalind Morris
07-04-00944-4
31
31. Anna Carey
08-04-00665-6
32 33
32. Clayton Nalley
09-04-00820-7
33. Louise Nichols
09-04-01110-1
34. Judd Smelcer
09-04-01453-3
34
35. H Kurt Olson
10-04-00513-9
36. Lynn Fairbanks
10-04-00531-7
37. Jared Collier
10-04-01013-2
38. Krista Blair
10-04-01235-6
39. Donna Vogel
10-04-01437-5
38
41. Michael Fenske
11-04-01556-6
39
42. Margaret Sullivan
12-04-00181-4
40 41
43. Teresa Horan (Higgins)
12-04-00250-1
44. Robert Tuckerman
12-04-00311-6
45. Murphy McCoy
12-04-00405-8
42
46. Jared Trimble
12-04-00509-7
43 44
48. Ruth Morales
12-04-00610-7
49. Margaret McDirmid
12-04-00964-5
45
50. Gustavo Morales
12-04-01459-2
46
51. Sharon Moore
14-04-00950-1
52. Connie House
12-04-01004-0
Page 2 of 6
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814
1
1
26
27
28 29
35 36 37
40. David P Campbell
11-04-00044-5
47. Betty Vingo
12-04-00595-0

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
47
48
49
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
53. Holly Sanford
92-04-00006-9
54. June I Love
94-04-00022-7
55. Marlo Foster
97-04-00967-9
56. Ernest Bowen
98-04-00390-3
57. Arthur Underwood
97-04-01239-4
58. Bernetta Melton
59. Barbara A Oppegaard
03-04-01220-5
60. Linda Zauner
07-04-01357-3
61. Lucas F. Rivero
08-04-00968-0
62. Bella Mally
09-04-00282-9
63. Ralph C White
64. Catherine Desjardins
10-04-00727-1
65. Alejandro Garcia
11-04-00300-2
66. Leslie Stanich
12-04-00381-7
67. Steven Eberhart
12-04-00510-1
68. Joseph Naylor
12-04-00677-8
63
69. Joan Smith
00-04-01277-4
71. Linda Brangwin*
4-94376
72. Cleora Boyd*
12-04-01327-8
73. Sarah DeMary*
08-04-01645-7
74. Nehemiah Slater*
02-04-01155-3
75. Sharon Louise Pitner*
88-04-01012-1
68
76. Dawn Wesselman*
08-04-00910-8
69
Page 3 of 6
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
60 61 62
70. Jeffrey R. Williams
12-04-00998-0
64 65 66 67
06-04-01018-5
95-04-01412-9

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of See Attached
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS (DIV. III)
NOTICE OF APPEAL to TO COURT OF APPEALS (DIV. III)
Hallmark Care Services, Inc. d.b.a Castlemark Guardianship and Trusts, CPG# 5128; Hallmark Care Services, Inc. d.b.a. Eagle Guardianship and Professional Services, CPG# 5132; and, Lori Petersen , seek review by the designated appellate court of the following decisions of the Superior Court:
Final "Judgment" entered on January 19, 2016 (postmarked/mailed January 20, 2016) The above-listed cases were commenced together, tried together, and are appealed as a single action. As such, only one filing fee need be paid pursuant to RAP 5.1(b).
Dated this 11th day of February, 2016.
By: JOHN PIERCE, WSBA # 38/22 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. Attorney for Appellant CPG Respondents
Page 4 of 6
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
i
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
93 I certify that a copy of the foregoing documents were delivered by First Class Mail, Postage Pre-paid, and addressed to the following:
Safe Haven Guardianship Agency, LLC 921 W. Broadway, Ste. 301 Spokane, WA 99201
Kelly B. Moore Moore Guardianship Services 5008 N. Lee St. Spokane, WA 99201
Special Notice Requested
James Sternberg 5211 Navajo Trail Pickney, MI 48169
Lawrence Garvin Attorney at Law 601 W. Main Ave., Ste 714 Spokane, WA 99201
Paul L. Calabro Attorney at Law 309 S. Liberty Lake Rd., #2 Liberty Lake, WA 99019
Winston Cook Cook Guardianship Services 520 N. Grant Ave Medical Lake, WA 99022
Jody Schierman PO Box 11501 Spokane Valley, WA 99201
Peggy Bureta 3012 W. Fairview Ave. Spokane, WA 99205
Lin O'Dell PO Box 9898 Spokane, WA 99209
Charmaine Getchell 618 S. Jefferson, #4 Spokane, WA 99204 Amanda Witthauer 921 W Broadway Ste 204 Spokane, WA 99201
James Spurgetis 422 W Riverside Ave., Ste. 620 Spokane, WA 99201
Janice Burke PO Box 3384 Yakima, WA 98903
Kristi Kilbourne Paladin Services LLC 8511 E Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99212
Leslie A Bening 518 S. Windswept Trial Post Falls, ID 83854
Thea A Skomo Assurance Guardianship Service 1314 S. Grand, Ste. 2, PMB 278 Spokane, WA 99202
Constance O'Hara 816 W Francis Ste 382 Spokane, WA 99205
Page 5 of 6
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Appendix

WORKING COPY

Judith K Robertson Wanda Powers

Training and Guardianship Services 2311 E Bismark

PO Box 30008 Spokane, WA 99208
Spokane, WA 99224

Evelyn Blackman Special Notice Requested
3317 E Fairview

Spokane, WA 99219

Marci Arthur Special Notice Requested
Division of Develop Disabilities

1611 W Indiana

Spokane, WA 99205

cc Spokane Guardianship Monitoring Program.

Dated this 11th day of February, 2016.

z: _ Law Orricz oF Joun Prence, P.S.
Page 6 of 6 505 W. Rivensioe Ave, Sm 518
Spoxang, WA 99201
TeLepnone: (509) 210-0845
‘Tetzrax: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
(Copy Receipt)
(Clerk's Date Stamp)
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE
In Re the Guardianship of:
Donald Mitchell
An Incapacitated Person
CASE NO.
4-9873-4
JUDGMENT SUMMARY (JDSUM)
Clerk's Action Required
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
1.
Judgment Creditor(s): Spokane County
2. Judgment Debtor(s): [ ] Lori Peterson K Castlemark Guardianship [ ] Eagle Guardianship [ ] Empire Guardianship [ ] Hallmark Guardianship
3. Principal Judgment Amount: $ 228.00
4. Interest to Date of Judgment: $0
5. Attorney Fees: $ 0
6. Costs: $0
----
JUDGMENT SUMMARY (10/01) Page 1 of 2

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
WORKING COPY
7. The principal judgment amount shall accrue interest at 12% per year.
8. Attorney for Judgment Creditor(s): n/a
9. Attorney for Judgment Debtor(s): John Pierce
· Dated: 1/19/16
Signed :-
JUDGE/COURT COMMISSIONER ..
JUDGMENT SUMMARY (10/01) Page 2 of 2

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
FILED JAN 2 0 2016
Timothy W. Fitzgerald SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
(Copy Receipt)
(Clerk's Date Stamp)
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE
In Re the Guardianship of:
CASE NO.
4-9873-4
Donald Mitchell
JUDGMENT SUMMARY (JDSUM)
An Incapacitated Person
Clerk's Action Required
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
-
1.
Judgment Creditor(s): Spokane County
2. Judgment Debtor(s): [ ] Lori Peterson
Castlemark Guardianship [ ] Eagle Guardianship [ ] Empire Guardianship [ ] Hallmark Guardianship
1
3. Principal Judgment Amount: $ 228.00
4. Interest to Date of Judgment: $ 0
1
5. Attorney Fees: $ 0
6. Costs: $ 0
3
16900464 JUDGMENT SUMMARY (10/01)
Page 1 of 2

No. 34236-1-IT]
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

Appendix ee

7. The principal judgment amount shall accrue interest at 12% per year.
8. Attorney for Judgment Creditor(s): n/a

9. Attorney for Judgment Debtor(s): John Pierce

Dated: (afte Signed: Hi tw WA

JUPGE/COURT COMMISSIONER

JUDGMENT SUMMARY {10/01}
Page 2 of 2

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
FILED
JAN 2 0 2016
Timothy W. Fitzgerald SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
(Copy Receipt)
(Clerk's Date Stamp)
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE
In the Guardianship of:
CASE NO.
1. Sharon Louise Pitner,
1. 88-4-01012-1
2. Ron Gehring;
2. 01-4-00294-7
3. Rex Lee Hartley;
3. 01-4-00821-0
4. Mary E. Wright;
4. 02-4-00316-0
5. Marlene Friesen;
5. 02-4-00384-4
6. Richard E. Bowers; 5
6. 02-4-00989-3
7. Jessica Harmon;
7. 03-4-00764-3
8.
Carisa M. Cornelius;
8. 05-4-00548-5
9. Robert D. Harris;
9. 05-4-01384-4
10. Portia Elvidge;
10. 06-4-00102-0
11. Helen Martin;
11. 06-4-01260-9
12. Rosalind Morris;
12. 07-4-00944-4
13. Anna Carey;
13. 08-4-00665-6
14. Dawn Wesselman;
14. 08-4-00910-8
15. Clayton Nalley;
15. 09-4-00820-7
16. Louise Nichols;
16. 09-4-01110-1
17. Judd Smelcer;
17. 09-4-01453-3
18. H. Kurt Olson;
18. 10-4-00513-9
19. Lynn Fairbanks;
19. 10-4-00531-7
20. Jared Collier;
20. 10-4-01013-2
21. Krista Blair;
21. 10-4-01235-6
22. Donna Vogel;
22. 10-4-01437-5
23. David Campbell;
23. 11-4-00044-5
24. Michael Fenske;
24. 11-4-01556-6
25. Margaret Sullivan;
25. 12-4-00181-4
26. Teresa Higgins;
26. 12-4-00250-1
27. Robert W. Tuckerman;
27. 12-4-00311-6
98734 --

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
28. Murphy McCoy;
28. 12-4-00405-8
29. Jared Trimble;
29. 12-4-00509-7
30. Betty Vingo;
30. 12-4-00595-0
31. Ruth Morales;
31. 12-4-00610-7
32. Margaret McDirmid;
32. 12-4-00964-5
33. Gustavo Morales;
33. 12-4-01459-2
34. Sharon Moore;
34. 14-4-00950-1
35. Jeffrey R. Williams;
35. 88-4-00487-2
36. Holly Mae Sanford;
36. 92-4-00006-9
37. June Love;
37. 94-4-00022-7
38. Marlo Foster;
38. 95-4-01412-9
39. Ernest Bowen;
39. 97-4-00967-9
40. Bernetta E. Melton;
40. 97-4-01239-4
41. Arthur Underwood;
41. 98-4-00390-3
42. Barbara A. Oppegaard;
42. 03-4-01220-5
43. Linda Zauner;
43. 06-4-01018-5
44. Lucas Rivero;
44. 07-4-01357-3
45. Bella Mally;
45. 08-4-00968-0
46. Ralph C. White;
46. 09-4-00282-9
47. Catherine Desjardins;
47. 10-4-00727-1
48. Alejandro Garcia;
48. 11-4-00300-2
49. Leslie Stanich;
49. 12-4-00381-7
50. Steven Eberhart;
50. 12-4-00510-1
51. Joseph Naylor;
51. 12-4-00677-8
52. Joan S. Smith;
52. 12-4-00998-0
53. Connie L. House;
53. 12-4-01004-0
54. Janet L. Shaw
54. 96-4-01378-3
55. Malcolm Mclellan
55. 97-4-01092-8
56. Thomas Getchell
56. 01-4-01342-6
57. Robert Loss
57. 02-4-01201-1
58. Walter L. Withers
58. 04-4-00274-7
59. Thomas Miller Jr.
59. 05-4-01226-1
60. Elvella Storrud
60. 06-4-01226-9
61. Christopher Dean
61. 06-4-01476-8
.

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Appendix
-
62. Aaron Eisenman
62. 07-4-00293-8
63, Nanci J. Stocker
63. 07-4-00756-5
64. Lewis Palmer
64. 08-4-00098-4
65. James Zingale
65. 09-4-00704-9
66. Marjorie K. Hopper
66. 12-4-00511-9
67. Bertha Jenkins
67. 12-4-00690-5
68. Carl McMorris
68. 12-4-01005-8
69. Kirsten Sternberg
69. 12-4-01415-1
70. Michaele Hood
70. 13-4-00267-3
71. Bart Harrington
71. 13-4-00268-1
72. Donald Mitchell
72. 4-98734
73. Nehemiah Slater
73. 02-4-01155-3
74. Sarah DeMary
74. 08-4-01645-7
75. Cleora Boyd
75. 12-4-01327-8
76. Linda Brangwin
76. 4-94376
ORDER ON CONTEMPT REVIEW
(AFSR)
THIS MATTER came before the court on a review of Order on Contempt which was entered October 29, 2015.
I. FINDINGS
The court finds that this matter was set before Commissioner Grovdahl on January 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 306 pursuant to the Order on Contempt dated October 29, 2015. That at that place and time neither the Respondents nor their attorney appeared. That the court inquired of the staff members who were present from the Guardianship Monitoring Program and they indicated that there had been no accountings filed by the Respondents since the entry of the Order which compelled the same. The court finds that the Respondents continue to be in contempt and that to date pursuant to the October 29, 2015 order provisions, they have been in non-compliance 76 days for each of the above-referenced cases at $3.00

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix
1
per day for each case for a total of $228 per case. That judgment should enter for such amount on each case as of January 13, 2016. Until the Order on Contempt is complied with that there shall continue to be assessed a monetary penalty.
II. ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that judgment herein be entered for each of the above cases in the amount of $228.00 for the period from October 29, 2015 through January 13, 2016.
DATED this 19h day of January, 2016.
Stan AStrandall
JUDGE/COURT COMMISSIONER

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
CN: 498734
SN: 247
PC: 9
FILED Court of Appeals Division III State of Washington 10/24/2019 10:39 AM
FILED
OCT 0 8 2019
Timothy W. Fitzgerald SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
1. Donald R. Mitchell
04-09873-4
2. Bart Harrington
13-04-00268-1
3. Michaele Hood
13-04-00267-3
4. Kirsten P Sternberg
12-04-01415-1
5. Carl McMorris
12-04-01005-8
6. Bertha L Jenkins
12-04-00690-5
7. Marjorie K Hopper
12-04-00511-9
8. James Zingale
09-04-00704-9
9. Lewis Palmer
08-04-00098-4
10. Nanci Jo Stocker
07-04-00756-5
11. Aaron Corey Eisenman
07-04-00293-8
12. Christopher Dean
06-04-01476-8
13. Elvella Storrud
06-04-01226-9
14. Thomas Miller
05-04-01226-1
15. Walter L Withers
04-04-00274-7
16. Robert E Loss
02-04-01201-1
17. Thomas Getchell
01-04-01342-6
18. Malcolm McLellan
97-04-01092-8
19. Janet L Shaw
96-04-01378-3
20. Ron Gehring
01-04-00294-7
21. Jonathan Hartley
01-04-00821-0
22. Mary E Wright
02-04-00316-0
23. Marlene Friesen
02-04-00384-4
24. Richard E. Bowers
02-04-00989-3
25. Jessica Harmon
03-04-00764-3
26. Carisa M. Cornelius
05-04-00548-5
Page 1 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
27. Robert D Harris
05-04-01384-4
28. Portia Elvidge
06-04-00102-0
29. Helen Martin
06-04-01260-9
30. Rosalind Morris
07-04-00944-4
31. Anna Carey
08-04-00665-6
32. Clayton Nalley
09-04-00820-7
33. Louise Nichols
09-04-01110-1
34. Judd Smelcer
09-04-01453-3
35. H Kurt Olson
10-04-00513-9
36. Lynn Fairbanks
10-04-00531-7
37. Jared Collier
10-04-01013-2
38. Krista Blair
10-04-01235-6
39. Donna Vogel
10-04-01437-5
40. David P Campbell
11-04-00044-5
41. Michael Fenske
11-04-01556-6
42. Margaret Sullivan
12-04-00181-4
43. Teresa Horan (Higgins)
12-04-00250-1
44. Robert Tuckerman
12-04-00311-6
45. Murphy McCoy
12-04-00405-8
46. Jared Trimble
12-04-00509-7
47. Betty Vingo
12-04-00595-0
48. Ruth Morales
12-04-00610-7
49. Margaret McDirmid
12-04-00964-5
50. Gustavo Morales
12-04-01459-2
51. Sharon Moore
14-04-00950-1
52. Connie House
12-04-01004-0
Page 2 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
Cause No.
53. Holly Sanford
92-04-00006-9
54. June I Love
94-04-00022-7
55. Marlo Foster
95-04-01412-9
56. Ernest Bowen
97-04-00967-9
57. Arthur Underwood
98-04-00390-3
58. Bernetta Melton
97-04-01239-4
59. Barbara A Oppegaard
03-04-01220-5
60. Linda Zauner
06-04-01018-5
61. Lucas F. Rivero
07-04-01357-3
62. Bella Mally
08-04-00968-0
63. Ralph C White 09-04-00282-9
64. Catherine Desjardins
10-04-00727-1
65. Alejandro Garcia
11-04-00300-2
66. Leslie Stanich
12-04-00381-7
67. Steven Eberhart
12-04-00510-1
68. Joseph Naylor
12-04-00677-8
69. Joan Smith
12-04-00998-0
70. Jeffrey R. Williams
88-4-004872
71. Linda Brangwin*
4-94376
72. Cleora Boyd*
12-04-01327-8
73. Sarah DeMary*
08-04-01645-7
74. Nehemiah Slater*
02-04-01155-3
75. Sharon Louise Pitner*
88-04-01012-1
76. Dawn Wesselman*
08-04-00910-8
Page 3 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
In re the Guardianship(s) of
No. 342361 DONALD RAYMOND MITCHELL, et al.
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS (DIV. III)
NOTICE OF APPEAL to TO COURT OF APPEALS (DIV. III) Hallmark Care Services, Inc. d.b.a Castlemark Guardianship and Trusts, CPG# 5128; Hallmark Care Services, Inc. d.b.a. Eagle Guardianship and Professional Services, CPG# 5132; and, Lori Petersen , seek review by the designated appellate court of the following decisions of the Superior Court:
Final "Order", denying Defendants' motion for statutory fees and costs as prevailing party, entered on September 24, 2019 (postmarked/mailed September 24, 2019 with no service parties listed).
The above-listed cases were commenced together, tried together, and are appealed as a single action, consolidated under the caption above. RAP 3.3. Appellants are filing a single notice for all consolidated cases pursuant to RAP 5.3(e)
Dated this 8th day of October, 2019. By:
JOHN PIERCE, WSBA # 38722 LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. Attorney for Appellant/ CPG Respondents
Page 4 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I certify that a copy of the foregoing documents were delivered by First Class Mail, Postage Pre-paid , and addressed to the following:
Steve Kinn Spokane County Prosecutor's Office Civil Department 1115 W. Broadway Ave.
Spokane, WA 99260
[ First Class Mail, Postage Pre-paid [ ] Hand Delivered [ ] Overnight Mail [ ] Telecopy (fax)
Dated this 8th day of October, 2019.
John Piece, Atty for Apellals
Page 5 of 5
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN PIERCE, P.S. 505 W. RIVERSIDE AVE., STE 518 SPOKANE, WA 99201 TELEPHONE: (509) 210-0845 TELEFAX: (509) 267-0814

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
1 2 3 4 5
COPY ORIGINAL FILED SEP 2 4 2019
SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE
Re: Guardianships/Trusts of: Sharon Louise Pitner Ron Gehring Rex Lee Hartley
Mary E. Wright Marlene Friesen
Cause No. 88-4-01012-1 Cause No. 01-4-00294-7 Cause No. 01-4-00821-0 Cause No. 02-4-00316-0 Cause No. 02-4-00384-4 Cause No. 02-4-00989-3 Cause No. 03-4-00764-3 Cause No. 05-4-00548-5 Cause No. 05-4-01384-4
ORDER RE: STATUTORY FEES AND COSTS
Dawn Wesselman
Cause No. 08-4-00910-8 Cause No. 09-4-00820-7 Cause No. 09-4-01110-1
Clayton Nalley Louise Nichols Judd Smelcer H. Kurt Olson
Cause No. 09-4-01453-3 Cause No. 10-4-00513-9 Cause No. 10-4-00531-7 Cause No. 10-4-01013-2
Lynn Fairbanks Jared Collier Krista Blair
Cause No. 10-4-01235-6
Donna Vogel
Cause No. 10-4-01437-5 Cause No. 11-4-00044-5 Cause No. 11-4-01556-6
Margaret Sullivan Teresa Higgins
Cause No. 12-4-00181-4 Cause No. 12-4-00250-1 Cause No. 12-4-00311-6
Robert W. Tuckerman
Murphy McCoy Jared Trimble
Cause No. 12-4-00405-8 Cause No. 12-4-00509-7
Betty Vingo Ruth Morales
Cause No. 12-4-00595-0
Cause No. 12-4-00610-7
ORDER Page 1 of 4
24
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Richard E. Bowers Jessica Harmon Carisa M. Cornelius
Robert D. Harris Portia Elvidge
Cause No. 06-4-00102-0 Cause No. 06-4-01260-9 Cause No. 07-4-00944-4 Cause No. 08-4-00910-8
Helen Martin
Rosalind Morris Anna Carey
David Campbell
Michael Fenske

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
1
Margaret McDirmid Gustavo Morales Sharon Moore
Cause No. 12-4-01459-2 Cause No. 14-4-00950-1
3 4 5
Holly Mae Sanford June Love
Cause No. 88-4-00487-2 Cause No. 92-4-00006-9 Cause No. 94-4-00022-7 Cause No. 95-4-01412-9 Cause No. 97-4-00967-9 Cause No. 97-4-01239-4 Cause No. 98-4-00390-3
6 7 8
Lucas Rivero Bella Mally Ralph C. White
Catherine Desjardins
Cause No. 10-4-00727-1
9 10
Steven Eberhart
Cause No. 12-4-00510-1
Joseph Naylor Joan S. Smith
Cause No. 12-4-00677-8
11 12 13
Malcolm Mclellan
Thomas Getchell Robert Loss
Walter L. Withers
Thomas Miller Jr. Elvella Storrud
Christopher Dean
Aaron Eisenman Nanci J. Stocker
Lewis Palmer James Zingale
Cause No. 12-4-00998-0 Cause No. 12-4-01004-0 Cause No. 96-4-01378-3 Cause No. 97-4-01092-8 Cause No. 01-4-01342-6 Cause No. 02-4-01201-1 Cause No. 04-4-00274-7 Cause No. 05-4-01226-1 Cause No. 06-4-01226-9 Cause No. 06-4-01476-8 Cause No. 07-4-00293-8 Cause No. 07-4-00756-5 Cause No. 08-4-00098-4 Cause No. 09-4-00704-9 Cause No. 12-4-00511-9 Cause No. 12-4-00690-5 Cause No. 12-4-01005-8 Cause No. 12-4-01415-1 Cause No. 13-4-00267-3 Cause No. 13-4-00268-1 Cause No. 4-98734
19 Carl McMorris Kirsten Sternberg Michaele Hood Bart Harrington
20 21 22
Donald Mitchell Nehemiah Slater
Cause No. 02-4-01155-3
Sarah DeMary
Cause No. 08-4-01645-7
Cleora Boyd
Cause No. 12-4-01327-8
Linda Brangwin
Cause No. 4-94376
23 24
ORDER Page 2 of 4
Cause No. 12-4-00964-5
2
Jeffrey R. Williams
Marlo Foster
Ernest Bowen
Bernetta E. Melton
Arthur Underwood Barbara A. Oppegaard
Linda Zauner
Cause No. 03-4-01220-5 Cause No. 06-4-01018-5 Cause No. 07-4-01357-3 Cause No. 08-4-00968-0 Cause No. 09-4-00282-9
Alejandro Garcia Leslie Stanich
Cause No. 11-4-00300-2
Cause No. 12-4-00381-7
Connie L. House Janet L. Shaw
14 15 16 17 18 Marjorie K. Hopper Bertha Jenkins

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
This matter came before the Court on Friday, September 13, 2019 upon this Court's Motion for Presentment and the motions of Lori Peterson d/b/a Empire Care Services, an individual; and, Hallmark Care Services Inc., a Washington Corporation d/b/a Castlemark Guardianship and Trusts, d/b/a Empire Guardianship and Professional Services to vacate certain Judgments as referenced in the motion, together with a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
At the time of the hearing the Court entered two orders. The first was the order brought on for presentment by the Court which vacated the October 28, 2015 sanction order against Lori Peterson, et al., and the second was an Order Vacating Certain Judgments in June 2015 against Lori Peterson, et al.
As to the Motion for Statutory Fees and Costs, the Court reserved ruling to ascertain the procedural aspects of entering the order in light of the pending appeal and to consider the substance of the motion.
The Court is now satisfied it can proceed to enter an order on the issue of the fee request so as to allow review by the Court of Appeals.
Lori Peterson, et al., asserts a right to statutory attorney's fees and costs under RCW 4.84.010 et seq. The request is basis upon the theory it is a prevailing party. To succeed on that theory this Court would have to find it was a party, or the Guardianship Monitoring Program was a party, and that Peterson, et al. prevailed under the statute.
This Court holds that the Court and the Guardianship Monitoring Program are not parties for the purposes of the award of statutory in this matter as they are not named parties in any capacity in the cases at issue.
ORDER Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
This Court further holds that even if the entities against who fees and costs are held to be parties for the purposes of RCW 4.84/010 et seq., Peterson, et al. is not "prevailing" under the statute. The Court vacated sanction orders on its own motion. Peterson, et al. did not prevail on any substantive aspect of the action.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Statutory Fees and Costs to Peterson, et al.
DATED this 23cd day of September, 2019.
Judge Harold D. Clarke, III
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
ORDER Page 4 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
FILED
SEP 2 4 2019 TIMOTHY W. FITZGERALD SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
CN: 498734 SN: 246 PC: 4
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE
Re: Guardianships/Trusts of: Sharon Louise Pitner Ron Gehring Rex Lee Hartley Mary E. Wright Marlene Friesen Richard E. Bowers Jessica Harmon Carisa M. Cornelius Robert D. Harris Portia Elvidge Helen Martin Rosalind Morris Anna Carey Dawn Wesselman Clayton Nalley Louise Nichols Judd Smelcer H. Kurt Olson
Cause No. 88-4-01012-1 Cause No. 01-4-00294-7 Cause No. 01-4-00821-0 Cause No. 02-4-00316-0 Cause No. 02-4-00384-4 Cause No. 02-4-00989-3 Cause No. 03-4-00764-3 Cause No. 05-4-00548-5 Cause No. 05-4-01384-4 Cause No. 06-4-00102-0 Cause No. 06-4-01260-9 Cause No. 07-4-00944-4 Cause No. 08-4-00910-8 Cause No. 08-4-00910-8 Cause No. 09-4-00820-7 Cause No. 09-4-01110-1 Cause No. 09-4-01453-3
ORDER RE: STATUTORY FEES AND COSTS
Lynn Fairbanks Jared Collier Krista Blair Donna Vogel David Campbell Michael Fenske Margaret Sullivan Teresa Higgins Robert W. Tuckerman Murphy McCoy Jared Trimble Betty Vingo Ruth Morales
Cause No. 10-4-00513-9 Cause No. 10-4-00531-7 Cause No. 10-4-01013-2 Cause No. 10-4-01235-6 Cause No. 10-4-01437-5 Cause No. 11-4-00044-5 Cause No. 11-4-01556-6 Cause No. 12-4-00181-4 Cause No. 12-4-00250-1 Cause No. 12-4-00311-6 Cause No. 12-4-00405-8 Cause No. 12-4-00509-7 Cause No. 12-4-00595-0 Cause No. 12-4-00610-7
ORDER Page 1 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
1
Margaret McDirmid Gustavo Morales Sharon Moore
Jeffrey R. Williams Holly Mae Sanford June Love Marlo Foster
Cause No. 12-4-00964-5 Cause No. 12-4-01459-2 Cause No. 14-4-00950-1 Cause No. 88-4-00487-2 Cause No. 92-4-00006-9 Cause No. 94-4-00022-7 Cause No. 95-4-01412-9 Cause No. 97-4-00967-9 Cause No. 97-4-01239-4
Bernetta E. Melton
Arthur Underwood
Barbara A. Oppegaard
Cause No. 98-4-00390-3 Cause No. 03-4-01220-5 Cause No. 06-4-01018-5 Cause No. 07-4-01357-3 Cause No. 08-4-00968-0 Cause No. 09-4-00282-9
Catherine Desjardins Alejandro Garcia
Cause No. 10-4-00727-1 Cause No. 11-4-00300-2
Cause No. 12-4-00381-7 Cause No. 12-4-00510-1
Malcolm Mclellan
Cause No. 12-4-00677-8 Cause No. 12-4-00998-0 Cause No. 12-4-01004-0 Cause No. 96-4-01378-3 Cause No. 97-4-01092-8 Cause No. 01-4-01342-6 Cause No. 02-4-01201-1 Cause No. 04-4-00274-7 Cause No. 05-4-01226-1
Thomas Miller Jr. Elvella Storrud
Christopher Dean
Cause No. 06-4-01226-9 Cause No. 06-4-01476-8 Cause No. 07-4-00293-8 Cause No. 07-4-00756-5 Cause No. 08-4-00098-4
Aaron Eisenman Nanci J. Stocker Lewis Palmer James Zingale
Marjorie K. Hopper Bertha Jenkins Carl McMorris
Cause No. 09-4-00704-9 Cause No. 12-4-00511-9 Cause No. 12-4-00690-5 Cause No. 12-4-01005-8 Cause No. 12-4-01415-1 Cause No. 13-4-00267-3 Cause No. 13-4-00268-1 Cause No. 4-98734
Kirsten Sternberg Michaele Hood Bart Harrington Donald Mitchell
Cause No. 02-4-01155-3
Nehemiah Slater Sarah DeMary
Cause No. 08-4-01645-7
Cleora Boyd
Cause No. 12-4-01327-8
Linda Brangwin
Cause No. 4-94376
ORDER Page 2 of 4
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2 3 4 Ernest Bowen 5 6 Linda Zauner Lucas Rivero Bella Mally 7 8 Ralph C. White 9 Leslie Stanich 10 Steven Eberhart Joseph Naylor Joan S. Smith 11 Connie L. House 12 Janet L. Shaw 13 Thomas Getchell Robert Loss 14 Walter L. Withers

No. 34236-1-III In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al. Appendix WORKING COPY
This matter came before the Court on Friday, September 13, 2019 upon this Court's Motion for Presentment and the motions of Lori Peterson d/b/a Empire Care Services, an individual; and, Hallmark Care Services Inc., a Washington Corporation d/b/a Castlemark Guardianship and Trusts, d/b/a Empire Guardianship and Professional Services to vacate certain Judgments as referenced in the motion, together with a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
At the time of the hearing the Court entered two orders. The first was the order brought on for presentment by the Court which vacated the October 28, 2015 sanction order against Lori Peterson, et al., and the second was an Order Vacating Certain Judgments in June 2015 against Lori Peterson, et al.
As to the Motion for Statutory Fees and Costs, the Court reserved ruling to ascertain the procedural aspects of entering the order in light of the pending appeal and to consider the substance of the motion.
The Court is now satisfied it can proceed to enter an order on the issue of the fee request so as to allow review by the Court of Appeals.
Lori Peterson, et al., asserts a right to statutory attorney's fees and costs under RCW 4.84.010 et seq. The request is basis upon the theory it is a prevailing party. To succeed on that theory this Court would have to find it was a party, or the Guardianship Monitoring Program was a party, and that Peterson, et al. prevailed under the statute.
This Court holds that the Court and the Guardianship Monitoring Program are not parties for the purposes of the award of statutory in this matter as they are not named parties in any capacity in the cases at issue.
ORDER Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

No. 34236-1-III
Inre Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

Ap

WORKING COPY =

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24

This Court further holds that even if the entities against who fees and costs are
held to be parties for the purposes of RCW 4.84/010 et seq., Peterson, et al. is not
“prevailing” under the statute. The Court vacated sanction orders on its own motion.
Peterson, et al. did not prevail on any substantive aspect of the action.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Statutory Fees and Costs to
Peterson, et al.

J

a
DATED this we day of September, 2019.

A Sudge Harold D.

ORDER
Page 4 of 4

No. 34236-1-IT]
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

Appendix

Exhibit B

No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Ap

WORKING COPY

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I certify that a copy of the foregoing documents were delivered by First Class Mail, Postage
Pre-paid , and addressed to the following:
Steve Kinn [ {First Class Mail, Postage Pre-paid
Spokane County Prosecutor's Office [ ] Hand Delivered
Civil Department [ ] Overnight Mail
1115 W. Broadway Ave. [ ] Telecopy (fax)
Spokane, WA 99260
Dated this 8th day of October, 2019.
Apa
<x My £
Page 5 of 5 ee

Spokane, WA 99201
TeterHone: (509) 210-0845
Teverax: (509) 267-0814