IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF VALENTIN K. MEDVEDEV, an incapacitated person, ANDREI MEDVEDEV and MARIA MEDVEDEVA, Appellants,

v. UNIVERSITY OFWASHINGTON, MEDICAL CENTER, GROUP HEALTH, VIRGINA MASION MEDICAL CENTER, PARTNERS IN CARE, Respondents. No. 60522-4-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION r-o
72* PC
ro

o CO c;

—'o

FILED: April 22. 2013 Spearman, A.C.J. —Andrei Medvedev and Maria Medvedeva appeal various 

### provisions contained in the orderappointing MariaMedvedevaas successorguardian forherlate husband, Valentin Medvedev. Holdingthe issues raised bythe appellants
are either mootorwithout merit, we affirm. FACTS Valentin Medvedev suffered a stroke. In 2006, the trial court found Medvedev 

### incapacitated and appointed Partners in Care as the full guardian of his person and estate. Valentin's children (Andrei and Anna) and his wife (Maria) repeatedly attemptedNo. 68379-1/2 

### to prevent Partners inCarefromfulfilling itsduties. They harassed Partners in Care, as well as Valentin's healthcare providers, to the point where Swedish Hospital issued trespass admonishments to Andrei and Maria fordisruptive behavior. InApril 2007, the trial court issued an order of protection preventing Andrei, Maria, and Anna from 

### harassing Partners in Care and Valentin's healthcare providers. Partners in Care, nevertheless, petitioned to withdraw as guardian. 

### On July 30, 2007, a King County Superior Court commissioner signed an order 

### appointing Maria as the successor guardian of Valentin. The order included the restrictions previously imposed upon Andrei, Maria, and Anna in the protective order. The orderalso approved (1)$40,407.80 infees and costs for the guardian ad litem; (2) 

### $12,293 in attorney fees and costs for the person who had served as counsel for Valentin; and (3) $62,174.02 infees and costs for Partners in Care and its attorneys. Andrei and Maria appeal this order. DISCUSSION 

### Appellants argue the trial court improperly restrained them from contacting the health care workers providing Valentin with his care. However, given it is undisputed that Valentin has since passed away, the restrictions setforth in the orderappointing a 

### successor guardian are no longer in place, and that issue is moot. See RCW 11.88.140(c) (guardianship terminates automatically at the death of the incapacitated person).No. 68379-1/3 The appellants also contend the trial court exceeded its authority when it awarded guardianship fees and costs. They cite WAC 388-79-030, which limits guardianship fees to no more than $175 permonth and administrative costs to no more than $700 for Department of Social and Health Services (Department) clients. But 

### appellants cite to noevidence in the record establishing thatValentinwas a client of the Department at the time the fees and costs awarded by the court were incurred. Nor have they made an attempt to show that the awarded fees and costs fall under the purview of the cited WAC. Indeed, from our review of the documents designated by the appellants, it isclearthat for at leastsome portion of the guardianship, Valentinwas not a client ofthe Department. In short, appellants fail to meettheir burden ofestablishing that the trial court's award offees and costs was error. Affirmed.

WE CONCUR: 

# Js^/7V\^H.UVj.