¶1concurring.
¶2I agree with the majority’s opinion in every respect save one. In my opinion, interpretation of an ambiguous judgment, as contrasted with an ambiguous contract or other document, presents a question of law to be determined on review of the entire record independently of the trial court’s decision. In Neujahr v. Neujahr, 223 Neb. 722, 728, 393 N.W.2d 47, 51 (1986), the court stated that when faced with an ambiguous decree, in an appropriate action brought by the parties, the trial court should “resolve the issue as a matter of law in light of the evidence and the meaning of the decree as it appears.” I believe that if one accepts the Supreme Court’s dictum in Neujahr, it follows that an appellate court would review the trial court’s decision as it would any other question of *692law, i.e., independently. See, e.g., Misle v. HJA, Inc., 267 Neb. 375, 674 N.W.2d 257 (2004) (on question of law, appellate court is obligated to reach conclusion independent of determination reached by court below). Based upon the same authorities relied on in the majority’s opinion, I would reach the same interpretation but I would do so independently as a matter of law and without deference to the trial court’s decision. To that extent, I concur.