Windham v. Windham, 2015 WY 61

Parties divorced in 2012; in 2018 Mr. Windham sought modification of custody, visitation, and support. District court ultimately awarded Mr. Windham sole custody.
Ms. Windham was represented pro bono by a nonprofit attorney (WCADVSA). She moved to compel discovery after Mr. Windham failed to respond. Court ordered responses and conditionally authorized fee/expense briefing.
Ms. Windham’s attorney submitted an affidavit seeking $1,641.91 (value of time + travel/lodging). Mr. Windham argued Rule 37 permits recovery only for fees "incurred" by the party, and Ms. Windham incurred no fees.
Mr. Windham threatened and then filed a W.R.C.P. 11 sanctions motion against Ms. Windham for pursuing the fee request; the district court denied Rule 11 sanctions.
The district court denied an award of attorney’s fees (because Ms. Windham incurred no obligation) but awarded travel and lodging expenses to Ms. Windham’s attorney under W.R.C.P. 37 and deviated child support downward 24% based on Ms. Windham’s support of another child.
On appeal, Windham challenged (1) the child support deviation, (2) award of Rule 37 expenses to a pro bono attorney, and (3) denial of his Rule 11 motion. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by deviating from presumptive child support	Windham (appellant) argued deviation was improper or unsupported	Court (respondent) justified a 24% downward deviation because Brandi supports another minor child; local practice supports that percentage	Affirmed — deviation was within court’s discretion, based on a statutory factor and supported by findings
Whether Rule 37 permits awarding expenses where party incurred no attorney fees because counsel was pro bono	Windham: Rule 37 authorizes only fees/expenses "incurred" by the party; no incurred fees here so award improper	Brandi: Rule 37 is remedial/deterrent; courts can award the reasonable value of services/expenses even if attorney worked pro bono	Affirmed — court may award reasonable expenses (value of services and necessary travel/lodging) under Rule 37 despite pro bono representation
Whether district court erred in denying Rule 11 sanctions for pursuing the fee request	Windham: filing fee/fee hearing request was baseless and violated Rule 11	Brandi: she reasonably litigated an unsettled issue after court invited briefing/hearing	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; issue unsettled and not a baseless filing

Fix v. Forelle, 327 P.3d 745 (Wyo. 2014) (interpreting "incur" in fee context; declined to decide general right of pro se attorneys to recover fees)
Keck v. Jordan, 180 P.3d 889 (Wyo. 2008) (standards for child support determination and deviations)
Centennial Archaeology, Inc. v. AECOM, Inc., 688 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 permits fee awards measured by the reasonable value of services, not only amounts actually paid)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (fee awards to nonprofit counsel measured by prevailing market rates; pro bono status does not preclude recovery)
Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1989) (definition of "reasonable attorney's fee" as reasonable compensation for the attorney's services)