Theresa F. Murphy v. Robert Lunden, 75533-1

Background

Gloria Lunden was declared incapacitated in 2013; her husband Robert was appointed co-guardian. Gloria's daughter Theresa Murphy later sought removal of Robert and filed a Vulnerable Adult Protection Order (VAPO).
The guardianship was before Judge Charles Snyder; the VAPO was heard by Commissioner Alfred Heydrich. Commissioner Heydrich consulted Judge Snyder about case consolidation and subsequently dismissed the VAPO without prejudice.
Commissioner Heydrich declined to decide VAPO attorney fees, stating insufficient information and suggesting the guardianship court address fees; he disclosed his consultation with Judge Snyder on the record.
After Gloria died, Judge Snyder ordered Gloria’s estate to pay attorney fees and costs associated with the VAPO; Murphy appealed the fee allocation and amount.
On appeal Murphy challenged (1) the judicial officers’ ex parte communication/referral, (2) the court’s allocation of fees to Gloria’s estate rather than Robert, and (3) the amount awarded. The Court of Appeals declined to reach the first two issues as unpreserved/invited and reviewed only the fee-amount decision.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy)	Defendant's Argument (Robert / Estate)	Held
Whether commissioner’s off‑record consultation with judge and referral of fee issue was improper ex parte and beyond authority	Heydrich’s communication with Judge Snyder and de facto referral of fee determination was improper and deprived Murphy of a fair process	Any communication between superior court judicial officers about related matters is permissible; Murphy did not object below	Not reached — unpreserved; court declines to exercise discretion to review given no objection and Murphy’s affirmative request to allow fee determination in guardianship
Whether fees should have been assessed against Robert rather than Gloria’s estate	Fees should be charged to Robert personally	Court had discretion; Murphy herself requested fee allocation against either Robert or Gloria’s estate	Not reached — invited error; Murphy requested fees be paid by either Robert or the estate
Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding only a portion of requested VAPO fees ($1,562.50 of $9,515.96)	Full amount requested was reasonable because VAPO produced evidence (neuropsych evals) that led to Robert’s suspension in guardianship	Considerable overlap/duplication with guardianship work; only fees for initial VAPO petition (evaluation request) were reasonably attributable to VAPO	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in discounting for duplicative efforts and awarding a limited amount
Whether Murphy (or Robert) is entitled to appellate attorney fees	Murphy seeks fees under RCW 74.34.130; argues prevailing-party entitlement	Robert seeks fees under RCW 11.96A.150	Denied to Murphy (not prevailing on appeal); denied to Robert (court declines discretionary award)

Key Cases Cited

State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322 (1995) (preservation rule for appellate review)
State v. Robinson, 171 Wn.2d 292 (2011) (discussing exercise of discretion to review unpreserved claims)
In re Marriage of Littlefield, 133 Wn.2d 39 (1997) (abuse of discretion standard for fee awards)
In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129 (1995) (invited error/waiver doctrine)
State v. Hoffman, 115 Wn. App. 91 (2003) (distinguishing commissioner revision power from appellate jurisdiction)
State v. Blazina, 182 Wn.2d 827 (2015) (framework for discretionary review of unpreserved issues)
Gander v. Yeager, 167 Wn. App. 638 (2012) (standards on fee-award review)
Endicott v. Saul, 142 Wn. App. 899 (2008) (VAPO petitioner prevailing on appeal may be entitled to appellate fees)