author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    RICKY A. MORNEAU v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT ET AL.
    (AC 35594)
    Graendel, Lavme and Sheldon, Js.

      Argued December 5, 2013
    officially released February 4, 2014

      Ricky A. Momeau, self-represented, the appellant (plaintiff).

      Michael K. Skold, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Ricky A. Momeau, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Wiese, J., rendered when the court denied the plaintiffs motion to open the judgment, which he filed on October 5, 2012. Previously, on November 26, 2009, the trial court, Pittman, J., rendered judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendants, the state of Connecticut and the State Marshal Commission, due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity. Judge Wiese found that the plaintiffs motion to open the judgment failed to comply with Practice Book § 17-4 and that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that any exception to the four month limitation in that rule was applicable. See General Statutes § 52-212a. On the basis of our review of the record, the briefs of the parties and their oral arguments in this court, we conclude that Judge Wiese did not abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to open the judgment, which was filed almost three years after the judgment was rendered. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

       The defendants Timothy Bennett and John Harvey, administrator of the estate of Albenie Gagnon, are not parties to this appeal.

       Practice Book § 17-4 (a) provides: “Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, any civil judgment or decree rendered in the superior court may not be opened or set aside unless a motion to open or set aside is filed, within four months succeeding the date on which notice was sent. The parties may waive the provisions of this subsection or otherwise submit to the jurisdiction of the court.” (Emphasis added.)

       General Statutes § 52-212a provides in relevant part: “Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, a civil judgment . . . rendered in the Superior Court may not be opened or set aside unless a motion to open or set aside is filed within four months following the date on which it was rendered . . . .” (Emphasis added.); but see Nelson v. Charlesworth, 82 Conn. App. 710, 713, 846 A.2d 923 (2004) (judgment may be opened after four month limitation if judgment was obtained by fraud or mutual mistake).


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    CORNFIELD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. DAVID W. CUMMINGS
    (AC 34264)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Robinson and Mihalakos, Js.

      Argued November 13, 2013
    officially released February 4, 2014

      David W. Cummings, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

      Robert W. Chesson, with whom, on the brief, were G. Adam Schweickert and Joseph C. Abraham, for the appellee (plaintiff.

       The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this summary process action, the self-represented defendant, David Cummings, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the stipulated judgment he entered into with the plaintiff, Cornfield Associates Limited Partnership. The defendant claims that the court erred by finding that the stipulated judgment was not obtained by duress or mistake. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The defendant leased property from the plaintiff. On or about April 16,2008, the plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit possession. The defendant failed to comply. On April 28,2008, the plaintiff filed the underlying summary process action, alleging that the defendant had failed to pay in a timely manner his rent that was due on April 1, 2008. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff accepted a late payment. While the motion to dismiss was still pending, the court, Hiller, J., transferred the case to the complex litigation docket. In December, 2010, the court, Berger, J., denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss after finding that, although the plaintiff had deposited the checks given by the defendant after the service of the notice to quit, the plaintiff put the defendant on notice that any such payments would be for use and occupancy only and would not create a new tenancy. The defendant filed an answer and special defenses to the complaint, and the plaintiff denied the allegations of the special defenses.

The parties were scheduled to begin trial before Judge Berger, but the defendant requested mediation. On May 27, 2011, the parties participated in mediation facilitated by Judge Oliver. With the help of Judge Oliver, the parties reached a tentative agreement, but the defendant requested more time to consider it. Judge Oliver ordered them to return to court on June 1, 2011, to accept the agreement or to begin the trial.

On May 31, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for a continuance, stating that he was ill but that the court could reach him by telephone. The court, Berger, J., denied the defendant’s motion for a continuance, and the matter proceeded as scheduled. The plaintiff appeared on June 1, 2011, and accepted the proposed agreement in front of Judge Oliver. The court attempted to call the defendant by telephone several times, but was unable to reach him. Judge Oliver then issued an order on June 1, 2011, requiring the defendant to fax his acceptance of the proposed agreement to the courthouse by June 2, 2011, or the trial would be scheduled to begin. The order also stated that if the defendant accepted the proposed agreement, the matter would be scheduled for a court canvass of the defendant.

The defendant responded by facsimile that he accepted the proposed agreement, and on June 3, 2011, the court, Berger, J., rendered a stipulated judgment pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The agreement provided that the judgment would enter on the basis of “[l]apse of [t]ime,” that there would be a final stay of execution until September 30, 2011, and that the defendant would vacate no later than September 30, 2011.

On June 6, 2011, the defendant filed a motion requesting that the court schedule a court canvass of the defendant pursuant to Judge Oliver’s June 1, 2011 order. That same day, the court, Oliver, J., denied the defendant’s request for a court canvass after finding that “the written agreement contained language sufficient to establish the knowing and voluntary acceptance of the agreement by both parties.” On June 9, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to reargue the stipulated judgment and the June 6, 2011 order, and again requested that the court schedule a court canvass of the defendant. The court, Berger, J., denied the defendant’s motion to reargue on June 10, 2011.

On June 16, 2011, the defendant filed an appeal from the stipulated judgment and the denial of his motion to reargue. On August 8,2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal. While his appeal was still pending, the defendant filed a motion to open the stipulated judgment on September 30, 2011. He claimed that the judgment entered due to mistake, stress and duress. On October 13, 2011, we dismissed the defendant’s appeal. On January 27, 2012, the court, Berger, J., found that the judgment was not obtained through duress or mistake, and denied the defendant’s motion to open.

On January 31, 2012, the defendant filed the present appeal from the court’s denial of his motion to open the stipulated judgment. On March 26,2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming, inter alia, that the defendant’s appeal was duplicative, and, therefore, the issues in the second appeal were moot. This court, on May 23, 2012, granted the plaintiffs motion to dismiss to the extent that the plaintiff substantively challenged the stipulated judgment, and limited the appeal to the court’s decision regarding the denial of the motion to open.

We begin with the pertinent legal principles and standard of review relevant to our review of the defendant’s claim. “[0]ur courts have inherent power to open, correct and modify judgments, but that authority is restricted by statute and the rules of practice. ... A motion to open a judgment is governed by General Statutes § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-4. Section 52-212a provides in relevant part: Unless otherwise provided by law and except in such cases in which the court has continuing jurisdiction, a civil judgment or decree rendered in the Superior Court may not be opened or set aside unless a motion to open or set aside is filed within four months following the date on which it was rendered or passed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Richards v. Richards, 78 Conn. App. 734, 739-40, 829 A.2d 60, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 922, 835 A.2d 473 (2003). Practice Book § 17-4 states essentially the same rule. “Whether proceeding under the common law or a statute, the action of a trial court in granting or refusing an application to open a judgment is, generally, within the judicial discretion of such court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nelson v. Charlesworth, 82 Conn. App. 710, 713, 846 A.2d 923 (2004).

“In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, this court must make every reasonable presumption in favor of its action. . . . The manner in which [this] discretion is exercised will not be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . Questions of fact are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. . . . Because it is the trial court’s function to weigh the evidence ... we give great deference to its findings.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92, 107, 897 A.2d 58 (2006).

“A motion to open a stipulated judgment, when grounded on mistake or duress, necessarily requires the court to make a factual determination before it can exercise its discretion to grant or deny the motion .... In making its factual determination whether a stipulated judgment should be opened, the court must inquire into whether the decree itself was obtained by fraud, duress, accident or mistake. ... A stipulated judgment... is not voidable on the ground that it was accepted with reluctance, so long as its procurement was not the result of fraud, duress, or mistake.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Jenks v. Jenks, 232 Conn. 750, 753, 657 A.2d 1107 (1995).

The defendant first claims that the court erred by finding that the stipulated judgment was not obtained by duress. He argues that, at the mediation, he expressed to Judge Oliver that he was under a great amount of stress and was taking Percocet to alleviate back pain from a lumbar spine injury. The defendant further argues that, at the time he accepted the proposed agreement, he was sick with a virus; was facing potential criminal charges due to an alleged false report filed by the plaintiffs attorney, Robert W. Chesson; had received inadequate disability accommodations during the mediation; and had been denied a copy of the audiotapes and transcript of the mediation session, which, the defendant argues, he was required to receive as an accommodation of his disability. We are not persuaded.

“To conclude that a stipulated judgment resulted from duress, the finder of fact must determine that the misconduct of one party induced the party seeking to avoid the stipulated judgment to manifest assent thereto, not as an exercise of that party’s free will but because that party had no reasonable alternative in light of the circumstances as that party perceived them to be. . . . For a party to demonstrate duress, it must prove [1] a wrongful act or threat [2] that left the victim no reasonable alternative, and [3] to which the victim in fact acceded, and that [4] the resulting transaction was unfair to the victim. . . . The wrongful conduct at issue could take virtually any form, but must induce a fearful state of mind in the other party, which makes it impossible for [the party] to exercise his own free will.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cox v. Burdick, 98 Conn. App. 167, 177-78, 907 A.2d 1282, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 951, 912 A.2d 482 (2006).

The defendant argues that he was under a great deal of stress when he accepted the stipulated agreement because of his disability, the alleged inadequacy of the accommodations provided to him, the pain medication he was taking and the stressful nature of the litigation. Our case law states, however, that in order for a court to make a finding of duress, “one party must engage in misconduct to induce the other party to assent to the judgment . . . [and that the] defendant’s mental condition alone, therefore, cannot support a claim of duress.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 178. The defendant did not allege nor did he produce any evidence to support an assertion that the plaintiff coerced him into entering the agreement by taking unfair advantage of his mental state. Further, although the defendant alleged that Ches-son had made a false report to the police that caused a criminal complaint to be filed against the defendant, our review of the record reveals that the defendant did not produce any evidence to support his bald assertion that Chesson’s report was made in bad faith, nor did he present evidence that Chesson filed the report in order to induce the defendant to settle. See Sicaras v. Hartford, 44 Conn. App. 771, 789, 692 A.2d 1290 (plaintiff not under duress where no evidence that other party induced assent), cert. denied, 241 Conn. 916, 696 A.2d 340 (1997). The court’s finding that the defendant was not under duress when he entered into the agreement was not clearly erroneous.

The defendant also claims that the court erred by finding that the stipulated agreement was not obtained by a mistake. The defendant argues that because he believed that the court would canvass him before entering the agreement as a final stipulated judgment, there was a mistake and the court erred in denying his motion to open. We do not agree.

“A judgment rendered upon a stipulation of the parties is in the nature of a contract and may be opened by the court if the stipulation was entered into by mutual mistake.” Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency v. Landmark Investment Group, Inc., 218 Conn. 703, 707, 590 A.2d 968 (1991). A mutual mistake occurs when “in reducing to writing an agreement made or transaction entered into as intended by the parties thereto, through mistake, common to both parties, the written instrument fails to express the real agreement or transaction. ... In short, the mistake, being common to both parties, effects a result which neither intended.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lopinto v. Haines, 185 Conn. 527, 532, 441 A.2d 151 (1981). “Whether there has been such mistake is a question of fact.” Inlands Wetlands & Watercourses Agency v. Landmark Investment Group, Inc., supra, 708.

Although both parties may have believed that the court would canvass the defendant before entering the parties’ agreement as a final stipulated judgment, such a mistake is not material to the agreement. See BRJM, LLC v. Output Systems, Inc., 100 Conn. App. 143, 149, 917 A.2d 605 (trial court’s finding that there was mutual mistake clearly erroneous when mistake was not material to parties’ bargain), cert. denied, 282 Conn. 917, 925 A.2d 1099 (2007). The purpose of a court canvass is to ensure that the party is entering into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily; it does not affect the substance or terms of the underlying agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that a mistake such as the one claimed by the defendant is not a mutual mistake sufficient to open a stipulated judgment. The court’s finding that the agreement was not induced by mutual mistake was not clearly erroneous. In sum, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to open.

The judgment is affirmed.

       The defendant was self-represented at both the trial and appellate levels.

       Although the defendant raises eighty-two claims in his statement of issues, many of which are repetitious, this court, in its May 11, 2012 order, limited the scope of this appeal to the defendant’s claims regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to open in response to the plaintiffs motion to dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, to the extent that the defendant raises claims challenging the adequacy of his accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., those claims are not properly before this court, as the defendant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Mercer v. Rodriquez, 83 Conn. App. 251, 263-64, 849 A.2d 886 (2004).

       The court also sent the defendant a facsimile alerting him that the court had attempted to telephone him several times, but had not been able to reach him. The facsimile included a typed version of the proposed agreement for his consideration and requested that he appear in court or telephone the court immediately.

       The defendant’s facsimile, entitled “Response to Order Regarding [Judicial Mediation],” stated: “The Defendant David Cummings hereby respectively gives notice acceptance of proposed stipulation as was represented in Court on May 27, 2011 before the Honorable Vernon D. Oliver.”

       It is within the trial court’s discretion whether a party should be canvassed before the court enters an agreement as a stipulated judgment. Because we have concluded that “a settlement agreement is simply a contract, and traditional principles apply”; McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC, 117 Conn. App. 320, 333, 978 A.2d 1150 (2009), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 932, 987 A.2d 1029 (2010); this court has refused “to impose a bright line rule requiring canvasses of parties regarding settlement agreements at the time they are entered into.” Id.


author: ROBINSON, J.

text:
    AMY L. O’DONNELL v. GEORGE A. BOZZUTI
    (AC 35094)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Robinson and Mihalakos, Js.

    Argued October 28, 2013
    officially released February 11, 2014

      Thomas W. Beecher, for the appellant (defendant).

      Amy L. O’Donnell, self-represented, the appellee (plaintiff).

         The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

   Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The defendant, George A. Bozzuti, appeals from the judgment of the trial court modifying the child support order, alimony award and the allocation of unreimbursed necessary medical and dental expenses to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, Amy L. O’Donnell. The defendant claims that the court erred by (1) finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting a change in the financial orders, and (2) failing to consider all of the factors in General Statutes § 46b-82 when constructing the defendant’s new financial obligations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s appeal. On December 15, 2009, after nineteen years of marriage, the plaintiff brought an action seeking dissolution of the marriage due to an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The parties had three children, ages nineteen, seventeen, and twelve, at the time of the dissolution judgment. After three days of trial, the court, Winslow, J., in its October 11, 2011 memorandum of decision, found that the plaintiff was employed as a real estate agent, and that, although the defendant previously had worked as a subcontractor consulting with failing banks, he had been unemployed since July, 2011, and remained unemployed at the time of trial. The court ordered the defendant to pay $156 per week in child support until July 7,2012, when the parties’ middle child would turn eighteen. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay $110 per week in child support commencing July 8, 2012, until the parties’ “youngest child attains the age of eighteen or graduates from high school, whichever shall occur later, provided that child support shall not continue beyond the age of nineteen.” The court also ordered the defendant to pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $100 per week, and ordered the plaintiff and the defendant each to pay one half of the unreimbursed necessary medical and dental expenditures for the minor children not covered by health insurance.

On June 13, 2012, the plaintiff moved for a modification of the child support and alimony payments. In her motion, the plaintiff claimed that there was a change in circumstances warranting new financial orders because the defendant had obtained gainful employment. After a hearing on the matter, the court, Hon. Sidney Axelrod, judge trial referee, increased the defendant’s child support obligation to $277 per week, retroactive to June 13,2012, increased the alimony award to $400 per week, and ordered the defendant to pay 65 percent of the unreimbursed medical and dental expenses for the children. The defendant filed a postjudgment motion to reargue on September 14, 2012, which the court denied on September 19,2012. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

We first set forth our standard of review. “The standard of review in family matters is well settled. An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. . . . In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action. . . . Appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is governed by the clearly erroneous standard of review. The trial court’s findings are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the record as a whole. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weinstein v. Weinstein, 104 Conn. App. 482, 487-88, 934 A.2d 306 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 911, 943 A.2d 472 (2008).

I

The defendant claims that Judge Axelrod abused his discretion by finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances. He argues that, at the hearing on the motion for modification, he showed that his income actually had decreased from the amount of income used to calculate the original financial orders. The defendant contends that, although he was unemployed at the time of the dissolution trial, Judge Winslow constructed the original financial orders based on the defendant making a net income of $1554 per week because the defendant had included his previous salary as well as his unemployment benefits on his financial affidavit. The defendant, therefore, argues that the evidence actually showed that he had a decrease in income because his financial affidavit at the modification hearing averred that he made a net income of $1484 per week. Additionally, the defendant asserts that his company’s contract with a bank in Oklahoma was only temporary, and that he was unsure of how long it would continue. Accordingly, the defendant argues that, in light of this evidence, the finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances is clearly erroneous, and, therefore, Judge Axelrod abused his discretion. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are necessary for our resolution of this claim. At the dissolution trial, although the defendant was unemployed, he provided a financial affidavit that included his salary from a company called Corvus as his principal means of income, claiming gross earnings in the amount of $1584 per week. In addition, the defendant claimed unemployment benefits of $585 per week. After deductions, the defendant listed his net weekly income as $1554.

Judge Winslow found that for approximately three years prior to trial, the defendant worked as a subcontractor consulting with failed banks in different parts of the country until the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation changed the way bank assets were handled. Specifically, she found that: “From November, 2008, through April, 2009, the defendant was in Scottsdale Arizona. The next assignment was Fort Myers, Florida from May, 2009, through February, 2010. From March 1, 2010, until February 17, 2011, the defendant was in Cleveland, Ohio. The work had long hours, but was well compensated. . . . The defendant had gross earnings of $197,000 in 2009, and $223,400 in 2010.” Judge Wins-low also found that, from April, 2011, to July, 2011, the defendant worked for Corvus earning $2075 per week until he became unemployed in July, 2011. She then found that the defendant was unemployed for approximately two months before the three day dissolution trial, and that he received $585 gross per week in unemployment compensation. Judge Winslow’s memorandum of decision, however, does not specifically state what particular pieces of evidence that were presented at the trial were actually used to calculate the defendant’s financial obligations.

Judge Winslow ordered the defendant to pay child support in the amount of $156 per week until July 7, 2012, and in the amount of $110 per week thereafter. She noted that the child support orders “ [were] in accordance with the child support guidelines of the state of Connecticut.” Judge Winslow also ordered the defendant to pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $100 per week, and that the parties would split equally the unreimbursed necessary medical and dental expenses of the children.

In June, 2012, the plaintiff filed the motion for modification of the financial orders. The plaintiff stated that, because the defendant had obtained gainful employment, there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of the original financial orders. On August 27, 2012, Judge Axelrod held a hearing on this matter.

At the modification hearing, the defendant testified that in mid-March, 2012, his corporation, Greenwood Capital, LLC (Greenwood Capital), secured a contract consulting with a failing bank in Oklahoma. Appended to the defendant’s financial statement was a monthly profit and loss statement for Greenwood Capital. The defendant testified that he calculated Greenwood Capital’s gross monthly income by multiplying the weekly gross amount by four. Judge Axelrod found that this was an incorrect calculation because the weekly gross amount should have been multiplied by 4.33 in order to provide a more accurate monthly average. He adjusted Greenwood Capital’s gross monthly income to account for the mathematical error, allowed the defendant all but one of his claimed business deductions, and found Greenwood Capital’s net weekly income to be $2700. Judge Axelrod then adjusted the defendant’s gross weekly income to account for his adjustment of Greenwood Capital’s gross weekly income. Therefore, although the defendant provided a financial affidavit averring that his gross weekly income from Greenwood Capital was $2416, Judge Axelrod found that the defendant’s actual gross weekly income from Greenwood Capital was $2700. Additionally, Judge Axelrod found that the plaintiffs gross weekly income was $646. He then found that there had been a substantial change in circumstances, ordered an increase in the defendant’s weekly alimony and child support obligations, and ordered the defendant to pay 66 percent of the unreim-bursed necessary medical and dental expenses for the children.

The case before us concerns the postjudgment modification of both an alimony award and a child support order. Modification of alimony and child support is governed by General Statutes § 46b-86 (a), which provides in relevant part: “Unless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification ... an order for alimony or support . . . may, at any time thereafter, be . . . altered or modified . . . upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party . . . .” See Schade v. Schade, 110 Conn. App. 57, 62, 954 A.2d 846, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 945, 959 A.2d 1009 (2008); Weinstein v. Weinstein, supra, 104 Conn. App. 491.

“We previously have explained the specific method by which a trial court should proceed with a motion brought pursuant to § 46b-86 (a). When presented with a motion for modification, a court must first determine whether there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both of the parties. . . . Second, if the court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it may properly consider the motion and, on the basis of the ... § 46b-82 criteria, make an order for modification. . . . The court has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms the order to the distinct and definite changes in the circumstances of the parties. . . . Simply put, before the court may modify an alimony award [or child support order] pursuant to § 46b-86, it must make a threshold finding of a substantial change in circumstances with respect to one of the parties.” (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schade v. Schade, supra, 110 Conn. App. 63.

The party seeking the modification has the burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances. See Simms v. Simms, 283 Conn. 494, 502, 927 A.2d 894, (2007). “To obtain a modification, the moving party must demonstrate that circumstances have changed since the last court order such that it would be unjust or inequitable to hold either party to it. Because the establishment of changed circumstances is a condition precedent to a party’s relief, it is pertinent for the trial court to inquire as to what, if any, new circumstance warrants a modification of the existing order. In making such an inquiry, the trial court’s discretion is essential.” Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 737-38, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994). “A conclusion that there has been a substantial change in financial circumstances justifying a modification of alimony based only on income is erroneous; rather, the present overall circumstances of the parties must be compared with the circumstances existing at the time of the original award to determine if there has been substantial change.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gay v. Gay, 70 Conn. App. 772, 781, 800 A.2d 1231 (2002), aff'd in part, 266 Conn. 641, 836 A.2d 1 (2003).

Judge Axelrod’s decision is silent as to the exact basis for his finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances. Nevertheless, we necessarily must presume that he acted correctly and uphold the findings absent a showing by the appealing party that the finding is clearly erroneous. See Weinstein v. Weinstein, supra, 104 Conn. App. 487 (“[i]n determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Although the defendant claims that Judge Winslow created the original financial orders using $1554 as the defendant’s net weekly income, the record does not support this argument. Filed with the original dissolution judgment were two sets of completed child support guideline worksheets—one to determine the parties’ support obligation for one child, and the second to determine the parties’ support obligation for two children. Both worksheets Usted the defendant’s net income as $454 per week, supporting the conclusion that the original orders were calculated based solely on the defendant’s unemployment benefit of $585. Additionally, these worksheets provide for child support orders of $110 and $156 per week, which were the original child support orders of Judge Winslow, and orders that she specifically found were “in accordance with the child support guidelines of the state of Connecticut.”

Moreover, although the defendant argues that his financial statement at the modification hearing averred that he made a net income of $1484 per week, Judge Axelrod adjusted the defendant’s gross income to account for the defendant’s incorrect calculation of Greenwood Capital’s gross monthly income. Accordingly, he found that the defendant’s financial statement was incorrect and that his income actually was more than he reported. It is, therefore, reasonable that Judge Axelrod found that the defendant’s current financial situation had substantially changed compared to his financial situation at the time of the dissolution trial.

The defendant’s argument that his employment is temporary and, therefore, should not have been considered by Judge Axelrod is defeated by his employment history as found by Judge Winslow. Judge Winslow found that, for approximately three years, the defendant was a subcontractor who consulted with failed banks in different cities across the country. It is, therefore, reasonable that Judge Axelrod concluded that the defendant’s new contract was not a temporary situation, but a return to the defendant’s previous occupation. Accordingly, in light of the testimony presented, the findings and the record before us, we cannot conclude that Judge Axelrod’s finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances is clearly erroneous, and, therefore, we conclude that he did not abuse his discretion in modifying the financial orders.

n

The defendant also claims that Judge Axelrod abused his discretion by failing to consider all of the factors in § 46b-82 when constructing the defendant’s new financial obligations. He argues that the court focused only on his increase in income, and failed to consider other factors, such as his ability to pay. We do not agree.

Section 46b-82 (a), as amended by No. 13-213, § 3, of the 2013 Public Acts, provides in relevant part: “In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court shall consider . . . the length of the marriage, the causes for the . . . dissolution of the marriage . . . the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, earning capacity, vocational skills, education, employability, estate and needs of each of the parties . . . and, in the case of a parent to whom the custody of minor children has been awarded, the desirability and feasibility of such parent’s securing employment.”

Our Supreme Court has held that these statutory factors are relevant in deciding when and how an alimony award may be modified. See Borkowski v. Borkowski, supra, 228 Conn. 737 (“[o]nce a trial court determines that there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one of the parties, the same criteria that determine an initial award of alimony . . . are relevant to the question of modification” [internal quotation marks omitted]). “While the trial court must consider each of these factors, no single factor is preferred over the others, and the court is accorded wide latitude in varying the weight placed upon each item under the peculiar circumstances of each case.” Elliott v. Elliott, 14 Conn. App. 541, 547, 541 A.2d 905 (1988).

In its memorandum of decision on the motion for modification, the court did not provide specific findings as to its consideration of the § 46b-82 factors. The defendant did not ask for an articulation. Nonetheless, the court had before it not only the parties’ amount and sources of income, but evidence of the parties’ debt, assets, and occupations as provided by the parties’ financial statements. Further, because the dissolution judgment was rendered less than one year before the judgment of modification, it was reasonable for the court to rely on the findings within, absent contradictory evidence presented by the parties. It is, therefore, reasonable that the court considered all of this information in constructing the new financial orders. Thus, on the basis of the record before us, and the presumption afforded the court as to the correctness of its actions; see Weinstein v. Weinstein, supra, 104 Conn. App. 487-88; we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in its construction of the defendant’s financial obligations.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Judge Axelrod specifically found: “Well, there’s the problem, sir. I mean, you can do this one of two ways. The shortcut way is to multiply it times four point three. The long way is to [multiply] it out for the full calendar year and divide it.”
      Multiplying the weekly gross amount by 4.33 is the shorthand way for multiplying the weekly amount by fifty-two weeks per year and then dividing that number by twelve months.

       Judge Axelrod allowed the defendant all of his claimed business deductions except a $100 deduction listed as “medical expense.” He found that this was not a proper business deduction.

       General Statutes § 46b-86 (a) also provides that a child support order may be modified if “the final order for child support substantially deviates from the child support guidelines established pursuant to section 46b-215a, unless there was a specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate.” This provision of the statute, however, is not at issue in this appeal.