Court Opinion

ID: 9898579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:31:39.54569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.077576
License: Public Domain

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 with†
                                            )
             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                                            )        UNPUBLISHED OPINION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.

       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.

                                            2
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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,

                                             3
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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.

                                             4
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                             5
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

       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

                                             6
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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.

                                              7
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

       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

                                              8
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                             9
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                             10
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                             11
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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.”

                                              12
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

(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

                                             13
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                             14
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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

                                              15
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

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)).

                                             16
No. 34236-1-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.

       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.

                                            17
No. 34236-1-III
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-III
In re Guardianship of Mitchell, et al.
Appendix

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

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