Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf, 308 Neb. 202

Jennifer and Brian Mahlendorf divorced in 2010; the decree awarded Jennifer sole custody and required Brian to pay child support.
A 2013 stipulated modification allowed Jennifer to relocate to Tennessee and incorporated a downward deviation in Brian’s child support to account for anticipated travel expenses and abatement for extended summer parenting time.
A 2016 stipulated modification increased Brian’s monthly support but expressly continued the downward deviation based on anticipated travel expenses and summer abatement.
In 2019 Jennifer filed to modify support, arguing the downward deviation should be eliminated because Brian had not visited the children in Tennessee and therefore had not incurred travel expenses (and both parties’ incomes had changed).
At a 2‑day bench trial, after the first day the court expressed skepticism about whether evidence would show a material change; before the second day the parties negotiated a settlement increasing support but keeping the downward deviation, and the court entered a stipulated order reflecting that agreement.
Jennifer appealed, arguing the court erred in retaining the downward deviation; the Supreme Court concluded the 2020 order was a consent judgment and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the downward deviation in child support could be eliminated because Brian did not incur travel expenses	Jennifer: deviation must be removed as Brian did not incur travel expenses (material change)	Brian: 2016 agreement anticipated he "may" incur expenses; parties agreed to continue deviation	Court: Parties settled; the order is a consent judgment reflecting their agreement — not subject to appellate challenge; affirmed
Whether appellant may assign error to a judgment entered by consent	Jennifer: challenges the court’s determination maintaining deviation	Brian: consent judgments are not ordinarily subject to appellate review; appellant invited the result	Court: Consent-judgment rule bars challenging terms a party negotiated and requested; appeal denied

Smith v. Lincoln Meadows Homeowners Assn., 267 Neb. 849 (recognizing consent-judgment principles and estoppel)
McArthur v. Thompson, 140 Neb. 408 (explaining consent judgments are the parties’ act and ordinarily not reviewable)
Weander v. Johnson, 42 Neb. 117 (consenting party may not later urge error in proceedings leading to the judgment)
Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (discussing nature and compromise inherent in consent decrees)
Hotz v. Hotz, 301 Neb. 102 (2018) (child-support modification requires a material change in circumstances)