Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf, 952 N.W.2d 923

2010: Jennifer and Brian Mahlendorf divorced; Jennifer awarded sole legal and physical custody; Brian given parenting time and ordered to pay child support.
2013 modification: Jennifer permitted to relocate to Tennessee; parties negotiated parenting plan granting Brian limited in‑state and summer time; court approved a downward deviation in child support to account for anticipated travel expenses and summer abatement.
2016 modification: Parties stipulated to increased child support but expressly continued the downward deviation, justified by possible travel expenses Brian "may" incur and summer parenting time.
2019 petition: Jennifer sought to eliminate the downward deviation, alleging Brian had not traveled to Tennessee (so incurred no travel expenses) and incomes had changed; Brian defended that the 2016 agreement anticipated possible nonincurrence of expenses and filed a contempt application.
Trial: After day one the court expressed skepticism about eliminating the deviation; parties negotiated a settlement before day two and submitted a stipulated modification in 2020 that continued the downward deviation while adjusting support.
Appeal/posture: Jennifer appealed, arguing the court erred by maintaining the downward deviation despite lack of travel expenses; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed because the 2020 order was a consent judgment reflecting the parties’ negotiated agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the downward deviation should be eliminated because Brian incurred no travel expenses	Jennifer: No travel incurred → deviation no longer justified; material change warrants elimination	Brian: 2016 stipulation continued deviation for travel he "may" incur; parties contemplated nonincurrence	Court did not decide merits; the modification was a consent judgment reflecting parties’ agreement, so Jennifer cannot assign error; affirmed
Whether an order reflecting the parties’ negotiated agreement is subject to appellate attack	Jennifer: Challenges trial court’s determination sustaining the deviation	Brian: Consent judgment not subject to appellate review; party invited the court’s action	Held that, ordinarily, consent judgments are not reviewable on appeal and a party cannot complain of error it invited or consented to; affirmed

Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102, 917 N.W.2d 467 (2018) (modification of child support requires material change not contemplated at prior decree or modification)
Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849, 678 N.W.2d 726 (2004) (ordinary rule that consent judgments are not subject to appellate review)
McArthur v. Thompson, 140 Neb. 408, 299 N.W. 519 (1941) (consent judgments are acts of the parties and preclude complaining of error later)
Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (consent decrees reflect negotiated compromise; parties waive litigation rights)
Weander v. Johnson, 42 Neb. 117, 60 N.W. 353 (1894) (party who consents to judgment cannot later urge error)