author: WEST, J.

text:
    SAMUEL B. FULLER v. MARIGRACE R. FULLER
    (AC 29601)
    Flynn, C. J., and DiPentima and West, Js.

      Argued October 13, 2009
    officially released February 2, 2010

      George J. Markley, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      William F. Gallagher, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

WEST, J.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the plaintiff, Samuel B. Fuller, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in which it determined that by the self-executing terms of the final dissolution decree, and the separation agreement incorporated therein, the court’s previous child support order was retroactive to the date alimony payments to the defendant, Marigrace R. Fuller, terminated. First, the plaintiff claims that the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to determine that its previous support order was retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement. Next, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly concluded that the previous order that modified his child support payments was automatically retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement that was incorporated into the judgment of dissolution. Last, the plaintiff claims that the court’s determination that the previous child support order was retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement resulted in a gross injustice to him, and, therefore, principles of equity require this court to reverse that order. We disagree with the plaintiff and conclude that the court acted properly when it determined that by the self-executing terms of the final dissolution decree, its previous child support order was retroactive to the date alimony payments to the defendant terminated. The judgment is affirmed.

The record reveals the following facts and procedural history relevant to the plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on August 26, 1989. Following an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the court rendered judgment of dissolution on August 8, 2003. The parties had three minor children as of the date of the dissolution. The judgment of dissolution incorporated by reference the parties’ separation agreement, which contained provisions setting forth, among other things, the plaintiffs alimony and child support obligations. Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would pay unallocated alimony and child support to the defendant in an amount to be determined based on his salary and bonuses. Paragraph 8.1 of article VIII of the agreement provides in relevant part: “Commencing August 1, 2003, the [plaintiff], during his lifetime, and ending no later than May 31,2011, shall pay to the [defendant] as unallocated alimony and child support ... an amount equal to [45] percent of his first [$350,000] of salary and bonus, and [35] percent of salary and bonus in excess of $350,000 until he has paid a total of [$231,000] from these two sources per year . . . .” From June 1, 2011, through May 31,2015, the plaintiff was obligated to pay, as alimony, $10,000 per month. Also, paragraph 10.7 of article X of the agreement provides that the plaintiff, or his estate, shall pay to the defendant, as additional alimony, 50 percent of unvested stock grants “if, as, and when they vest,” such grants are awarded to the plaintiff before February 2,2003. The plaintiffs alimony obligation would cease on May 31, 2015, or in the event that he or the defendant died, the defendant remarried or upon her cohabitation pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (b). The agreement also provided that “[t]he alimony portion of the unallocated alimony and support shall be specifically nonmodifiable by the [defendant] as to term, duration and amount.”

The plaintiffs employment was terminated effective April 30, 2005. The plaintiff soon after ceased making unallocated alimony and child support payments. On April 22, 2005, the defendant filed with the court a postjudgment motion to fix alimony and child support in response to the plaintiffs anticipated loss of employment and the concomitant curtailment of his unallocated alimony and child support payment obligations under the formula set forth in the separation agreement. The motion stated that the plaintiff had informed the defendant of his pending termination of employment. In a letter dated December 19, 2005, the plaintiff indicated to the defendant that he would be making child support payments in the amount of $2000 per month. By memorandum of decision filed on May 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion. The court concluded that the separation agreement was comprehensive and resulted from the bargaining of the parties who, at the time of the agreement’s execution, were represented adequately by counsel. The court also concluded that the agreement contained an unambiguous preclusion of modification of the alimony formula found in the agreement. The court, however, concluded that the agreement did not preclude the modification of the child support component of the support order. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant child support in the amount of $3000 per week and stated that the order would remain in full force and effect until he began to earn salary and bonuses as per the formula explicated in the separation agreement for calculating unallocated alimony and child support. The court also reserved its jurisdiction over the issue of alimony.

On September 13, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs ex parte emergency motion for modification of parenting orders. As a result, the court granted to the plaintiff temporary sole physical custody of the children subject to supervised visitation by the defendant. On October 4,2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for modification requesting that the court modify its May 31, 2006 order, in which it ordered him pay to the defendant $3000 per week child support. On December 21, 2006, the court ruled on that motion, stating in relevant part that “pursuant to an order entered on September 13, 2006, and served on the defendant on September 12, 2006, the plaintiff has had de facto custody of the minor children on a continuing basis with limited visitation to the [defendant]. The order of support only is suspended retroactive to September 12, 2006. The plaintiff shall be given credit from September 12, 2006, for any excessive child support payments. In addition, appropriate credit shall be given to either party for any unreimbursed medical or dental expenses according [to] the agreement to equally divide same.”

On April 18, 2007, the plaintiff filed with the court a postjudgment motion for contempt. In it, he requested that the court find the defendant in contempt of its December 21, 2006 order and order her to pay him the sum of $45,857.14 to reimburse him for excess child support he had paid to her after September 12, 2006. On June 22, 2007, the defendant filed with the court a postjudgment motion for contempt. In it, she requested that the court find the plaintiff in contempt of its May 31, 2006 order and order him to pay her the sum of $154,000 in child support that remained due under that order. In her motion, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had failed to pay to her retroactive child support from May 15, 2005—the date on which the plaintiff ceased to pay her unallocated alimony and child support—to May 30, 2006. See footnote 11 of this opinion. Furthermore, she asserted, the retroactive child support that she was seeking in her motion was due her as a result of the self-executing terms of the separation agreement. After hearing oral argument on January 2, 2008, the court, by memorandum of decision filed January 11, 2008, granted the defendant’s motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendant a child support arrearage of $154,000. It is from this order that the plaintiff appeals. Further facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

First, the plaintiff claims that pursuant to General Statutes § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-4 the court lacked jurisdiction or authority to determine that its previous support order was retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement. We disagree.

Initially, we set forth certain legal principles relevant to the plaintiffs appeal. “Despite the existence of various exceptions to § 52-212a, our Supreme Court has stated that this statute ‘operates as a constraint, not on the trial court’s jurisdictional authority, but on its substantive authority to adjudicate the merits of the case before it.’ Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94, 104, 733 A.2d 809 (1999).” Perugini v. Devino, 111 Conn. App. 436, 442, 959 A.2d 1031 (2008). The plaintiff, therefore, incorrectly characterizes this claim as jurisdictional. Because, however, the plaintiff also challenges the legal authority of the court to issue the order, his claim raises a question of law that is subject to our plenary review. See Rosato v. Rosato, 77 Conn. App. 9, 17, 822 A.2d 974 (2003); see also In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208, 217, 764 A.2d 739 (2001); Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp., 254 Conn. 145, 156, 757 A.2d 14 (2000).

The plaintiff argues that the court lacked “authority to order that the [May 31, 2006] support order be made retroactive pursuant to [the defendant’s] motion that was . . . filed . . . more than a year after the support order was entered.” Essentially, the plaintiff argues that the defendant’s motion was filed, argued and ruled upon by the court as a motion to modify the court’s May 31, 2006 order. As a result, he contends, the court’s inherent power to modify that judgment was restricted by the time limits contained in § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-4, and, therefore, because the motion was untimely and the time limitation was not waived by the plaintiff, the court was without authority to entertain the motion. The plaintiffs characterization of the defendant’s June 22,2007 motion, the relief sought therein and the court’s ruling in its memorandum of decision is misguided.

“[T]he trial court’s continuing jurisdiction to effectuate its prior judgments, either by summarily ordering compliance with a clear judgment or by interpreting an ambiguous judgment and entering orders to effectuate the judgment as interpreted, is grounded in its inherent powers, and is not limited to cases wherein the non-compliant party is in contempt, family cases, cases involving injunctions, or cases wherein the parties have agreed to continuing jurisdiction.” AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 260 Conn. 232, 246, 796 A.2d 1164 (2002). We also note that “[m]otions for interpretation or clarification, although not specifically described in the rules of practice, are commonly considered by trial courts and are procedurally proper. . . . There is no time restriction imposed on the filing of a motion for clarification.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 244.

The defendant, on June 22, 2007, filed a motion for contempt in which she sought, inter alia, that the court find the plaintiff in contempt for his failure to pay child support for the fifty-four weeks between the date of his “unilateral termination of unallocated support payments, to May 30, 2006,” the date of the court’s child support order. In that motion, she argued that, by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement contained in article III, paragraph 3.1, the court determined that child support was retroactive to May 15, 2005, and that the plaintiff had paid only a small portion of the moneys owed under the agreement. On January 2,2008, the court heard oral argument on this motion, as well as the plaintiffs motion for contempt. Our review of the transcript reveals that the court, on the basis of the arguments of the defendant and the content of her contempt motion, ruled on the question of whether she was entitled, under the self-executing terms of the separation agreement to retroactive child support payments. Furthermore, although the court did not find the plaintiff in contempt, it expressly stated in its memorandum of decision that “[b]y the self-executing terms of the dissolution decree and separation agreement, the child support order is retroactive to the date alimony payments terminated, which was May 15, 2005. The plaintiff owes a child support arrearage of $154,000.”

We conclude that the court did not modify its May 31, 2006 order to make it retroactive to May 15, 2005, but, rather, ruled on the defendant’s motion for contempt as to that order. Furthermore, we conclude that the plaintiffs reliance on the time limitations set forth in § 52-212a and Practice Book § 17-4 is incorrect. The court had both jurisdiction and authority to effectuate its May 31, 2006 child support order in the manner in which it did. See AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, 260 Conn. 246; Kim v. Magnotta, 249 Conn. 94, 104, 733 A.2d 809 (1999). Therefore, the plaintiffs claim fails.

II

Next, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly concluded that the original order that modified his child support payments was automatically retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement that was incorporated into the judgment of dissolution. The plaintiff claims the court abused its discretion when it determined, either expressly or implicitly, that (1) the May 31, 2006 support order was made pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of the separation agreement, rather than paragraph 8.1 of the separation agreement and, therefore, automatically retroactive; (2) the “termination” of unallocated alimony and support contemplated in paragraph 3.1 was not intended to be a termination that is based on the remarriage or cohabitation of the defendant as provided in paragraph 8.4; and (3) termination of unallocated alimony and support had occurred in fact. We are not persuaded.

We must determine whether the court abused its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff owed to the defendant a child support arrearage of $154,000 and whether that conclusion was supported by competent evidence. This is so because “[i]n a contempt proceeding, even in the absence of a finding of contempt, a trial court has broad discretion to make whole a party who has suffered as a result of another party’s failure to comply with the court order.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) McGuire v. McGuire, 102 Conn. App. 79, 89, 924 A.2d 886 (2007); see AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, 260 Conn. 243 (noting Appellate Court repeatedly held even in absence of finding of contempt, trial court has broad discretion to make whole any party who has suffered as result of another party’s failure to comply with court order [citing Nelson v. Nelson, 13 Conn. App. 355, 367, 536 A.2d 985 (1988); Clement v. Clement, 34 Conn. App. 641, 647, 643 A.2d 874 (1994)]). Furthermore, we note that “[s]uch court action . . . must be supported by competent evidence.” Nelson v. Nelson, supra, 355.

“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 on 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 in the record 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.) Buehler v. Buehler, 117 Conn. App. 304, 317-18, 978 A.2d 1141 (2009).

On January 2, 2008, the court held a hearing concerning, inter alia, the defendant’s motion for contempt during which it received exhibits and heard testimony and oral arguments. The plaintiff, acting pro se, testified extensively, entered exhibits into evidence and presented oral argument in opposition to the defendant’s motion. Although the defendant did not testify, she filed with the court a memorandum of law in support of her motion and presented oral argument as well. The court, in its well reasoned memorandum of decision filed January 11, 2008, noted that in its May 31, 2006 order it had determined that the plaintiff had made no alimony payments from June, 2005, and that it had, as a result, ordered the plaintiff to pay child support to the defendant in the amount of $3000 per week, until the plaintiff began again earning a “salary and bonus” as per the separation agreement. It also concluded that by the self-executing terms of the dissolution decree and separation agreement, the child support order was retroactive to the date when the alimony payments terminated. It further determined that “[r]etroactivity under paragraph 3.1 does not require permanent termination of the plaintiff’s alimony obligation. Rather, the parties’ use of the word “ ‘payments’ ” in paragraph 3.1 shows that they intended to eliminate a gap between the cessation of “ ‘alimony payments’ ” and the start of “ ‘child support payments.’ ”

A thorough review of the record and the briefs and arguments of the parties on this appeal persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Our examination of the record reveals that the facts supporting the court’s action had a firm foundation in competent evidence and that its conclusions were legally and logically correct. We conclude that the court properly made the defendant whole after she had suffered as a result of the plaintiffs failure to comply with the court’s May 31, 2006 child support order. Although the court did not find the plaintiff in contempt, in its memorandum of decision, ruling on the defendant’s motion, it properly effectuated its May 31, 2006 child support order. See AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, 260 Conn. 246. Moreover, competent evidence supported the court’s action. See Nelson v. Nelson, supra, 13 Conn. App. 354-55.

We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion when it determined that, by the self-executing terms of the dissolution decree and separation agreement, the May 31, 2006 child support order was retroactive to the date alimony payments terminated, and, therefore, the plaintiff owed a child support arrear-age of $154,000. In the May 31, 2006 child support order, the court concluded that the separation agreement by which both parties were bound was comprehensive and the product of extensive bargaining and that both parties were adequately represented by counsel during its execution. It then concluded that by the terms of that agreement, it could not modify the alimony portion of the unallocated alimony and support payments but that it could modify the child support portion. The court determined that “money is not due [to the defendant for unallocated alimony and support] under [paragraph] 8.1, [therefore] this court will impose a child support order to take effect until the plaintiff begins to earn salary and bonus.” It then ordered the plaintiff to pay to the defendant child support in the amount of $3000 per week.

On the basis of those conclusions made by the court in its May 31, 2006 order, the plain and unambiguous language of paragraph 3.1 of the separation agreement; see footnote 12 of this opinion; and the record before the court—including the testimony of the plaintiff—it is clear that the court, in its January 11, 2008 memorandum of decision, did not abuse its discretion when it determined that by the self-executing terms of the agreement, the May 31, 2006 order was retroactive to the date that alimony payments terminated and that that termination occurred in June, 2005. Therefore, this claim fails.

m

Last, the plaintiff claims that the court’s determination that the original child support order was retroactive by the self-executing terms of the separation agreement resulted in a gross injustice to him, and, therefore, principles of equity require this court to reverse that order. We disagree.

The plaintiffs arguments in support of his claim are rooted in his mischaracterization of the defendant’s June 22, 2007 motion, the relief sought therein and the court’s ruling in its memorandum of decision. The plaintiff argues that, for various reasons, the court’s January 11, 2008 “decision to make support payments retroactive in response to a motion that was not filed until thirteen months after the [May 31, 2006] support order itself was entered” resulted in a gross injustice to him. As stated in part I of this opinion, however, the defendant, on June 22, 2007, filed with the court a motion for contempt in which she sought, inter alia, that the court find the plaintiff in contempt for his failure to pay child support for the fifty-four weeks between the date of his “unilateral termination of unallocated support payments, to May 30, 2006,” the date of the court’s child support order. As noted previously, the separation agreement by which the plaintiff was bound was comprehensive and the product of extensive bargaining, and he was represented adequately by counsel during its execution. Therefore, the plaintiff was on notice of its terms from the date of its execution in August, 2003, including that child support payments would be retroactive to the date of the termination of unallocated alimony and support payments. Therefore, no gross injustice resulted from the court’s determination that the child support payments were retroactive to the date of the termination of his alimony payments, and the equitable relief requested by the plaintiff is inconsistent with the terms of the separation agreement. Cf. Rent-A-PC, Inc. v. Rental Management, Inc., 96 Conn. App. 600, 606, 901 A.2d 720 (2006) (“the existence of a contract, in itself, does not preclude equitable relief which is not inconsistent with the contract” [emphasis added]). Therefore this claim fails.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       At the time the parties entered into the separation agreement, the plaintiff was employed as the executive vice president of development for AvalonBay Communities, Inc., and was earning in excess of $1 million a year in salary and bonuses.

       The court later determined, and the plaintiff does not dispute, that May 15, 2005, was the effective date of his cessation of unallocated alimony and child support payments that were set forth in the separation agreement.

       The plaintiff filed with the court on June 9, 2006, a motion to reargue and on June 16, 2006, a motion to vacate the court’s May 30, 2006 order for child support. The court denied both motions on December 21, 2006, by written order.

       The plaintiff also sought $697 for unreimbursed medical expenses for the children and $2341 for expenses he paid for various extracurricular activities for the children for a total of $48,895.14 plus interest and attorney’s fees.

       On June 22, 2007, the defendant also filed with the court an objection to the plaintiffs April 18, 2007 motion for contempt.

       The defendant also sought $3484.16 for unreimbursed medical expenses for the children.

       In her motion, the defendant conceded that the plaintiff had paid, in total, for the time period in question, $8000 to satisfy his child support obligation, and she offset by that amount the sum she was seeking from him.

       The plaintiff asserts in his brief that the court failed to decide his April 18, 2007 motion for contempt in its January 11, 2008 memorandum of decision. The plaintiff also “determined that such failure [was not] an appropriate subject of this appeal and that his remedy [was] to pursue the prosecution of his motion in the Superior Court . . . .” Because the plaintiff has chosen not to address this claim to this court, we express no opinion on the issue.

       In 2010, subsection (c) and its subdivisions were added to Practice Book § 17-4. That amendment has no bearing on the merits of this appeal. For purposes of clarity, we refer to the current revision.

       We note that “there is a clear distinction between authority (or power) and jurisdiction.” Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696, 711 n.10, 975 A.2d 636 (2009); see also Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 270 Conn. 778, 790, 855 A.2d 174 (2004) (“The power of the court to hear and determine, which is implicit in jurisdiction, is not to be confused with the way in which that power must be exercised in order to comply with the terms of the statute. . . . Whereas [sjubject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it . . . the authority to act refers to the way in which that power [to hear and to determine the controversy] must be exercised in order to comply with the terms of the statute.” [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]).

       The court’s support order was dated by the court May 30, 2006, but date stamped by the clerk’s office May 31, 2006. May 31, 2006, is therefore the filing date of the order.

       Paragraph 3.1 of the separation agreement states: “In the event of the termination of the alimony payments provided in Article VIII hereof during the minority of the children, the parties shall determine the amount of child support to be paid by the [plaintiff] during his lifetime to the [defendant] for the support of each of the minor children and, in the event they are unable to agree, the amount of such child support payments shall be determined by the Superior Court at Bridgeport or any other court of competent jurisdiction. Said amount shall be paid retroactive to the date of the termination of alimony.”

       Paragraph 8.1 of the separation agreement provides in relevant part: “Commencing August 1, 2003, the [plaintiff], during his lifetime, and ending no later than May 31, 2011, shall pay to the [defendant] as unallocated alimony and child support ... an amount equal to [45] percent of his first [$350,000] of salary and bonus, and [35] percent of salary and bonus in excess of $350,000 until he has paid a total of [$231,000] from these two sources per year . . . .”

       The plaintiff also claims that because of payments he made to the defendant under other provisions of the separation agreement in 2005, the court’s determination essentially resulted in a gross injustice to him. He also claims that a gross injustice resulted because his unallocated alimony and support payments were entirely tax deductible while the child support payments are not. Because the child support in question was pursuant to paragraph 3.1, those payments made by the plaintiff pursuant to other provisions of the separation agreement were in addition to the payments in question and, therefore, have no bearing on the issue of child support on appeal, nor do the tax implications of the retroactive child support payments made pursuant to a comprehensive separation agreement that was the product of extensive bargaining, for which he was adequately represented by counsel during its execution.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: BORDEN, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    SARA S. MARSHALL v. STEPHEN P. MARSHALL STEPHEN P. MARSHALL v. SARA S. MARSHALL
    (AC 30207)
    (AC 30442)
    Bishop, Lavine and Borden, Js.

      Argued October 20, 2009
    officially released February 2, 2010

      Kenneth J. Bartschi, with whom were Karen L. Dowd and, on the brief, Arnold H. Ruthin, for the appellant (defendant in the first case, plaintiff in the second case).

      Anthony L. Cenatiempo, with whom, on the brief, was Gaetano Ferro, for the appellee (plaintiff in the first case, defendant in the second case).
   Opinion

BORDEN, J.

In this consolidated appeal, the defendant, Stephen P. Marshall, appeals from the judgments of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Sara S. Marshall, and granting her motion to strike his petition for a new trial. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly: (1) precluded a future court from considering the plaintiffs income in a motion to modify alimony, (2) fashioned its financial orders with a punitive motive, (3) failed to correct erroneous financial orders concerning the distribution of the parties’ tangible personal property and (4) granted the plaintiffs motion to strike his petition for a new trial for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm in part and reverse in part the dissolution judgment of the trial court. We reverse the judgment as to the petition for a new trial.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s appeals. The parties were married on October 8,1977. hi September, 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking a dissolution of her marriage to the defendant, claiming that their marriage had broken down irretrievably. The plaintiff was fifty-four years of age and the defendant was fifty-seven. Both were in relatively good health. At the time of the trial, they had two children bom of the marriage, both of whom were adults.

By memorandum of decision filed on May 30, 2007, the court, Tierney, J., dissolved the parties’ marriage. It found that the plaintiff, a real estate broker in New Canaan, had a gross weekly income of $1231 in 2006. The court noted that her earnings recently had “been reduced due to the trauma of the divorce, the adverse real estate market and ten days of this dissolution trial.”

As for the defendant, a thirty-three year career employee of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) who had “proceeded up the corporate ladder” during the marriage and received “an excellent promotion to client executive for IBM’s American Express account,” the court found his gross weekly salary to be $4651. The defendant also “received stock options and incentive commissions. In 2006, he received $577,497 gross [income] in the form of cash and stock from stock options as well as $1,085,246 as incentive commissions for 2005 paid in early 2006. . . . Based on [his] earnings history, he anticipated receiving incentive commissions for the year 2006 early in 2007.”

In addition to assessing the parties’ financial state of affairs, the court examined the reasons for the marital breakdown and discussed these events in connection with the parties’ proposed financial orders. The court found that the defendant’s conduct, namely, an extramarital affair with another woman and the dissipation of assets in her favor, was, in fact, the cause of the marital breakdown.

The court entered comprehensive financial orders in connection with the parties’ extensive assets. The plaintiff was awarded periodic alimony payments in the amount of $7410 per month along with one-third of the defendant’s annual gross cash income in excess of $250,000. Several additional assets, including the net proceeds of the sale of the marital home located in New Canaan, a multitude of checking and savings accounts and a series of retirement, pension and IRA accounts that had been accrued by the defendant were ordered to be divided equally between the parties. The defendant also was ordered to pay the plaintiff a lump sum of $700,000 from his one-half share of the proceeds upon the sale of the marital home.

The financial orders also provided that the defendant was entitled to retire upon reaching the age of fifty-nine and that in the event of his retirement the periodic alimony payments to the plaintiff would be reduced to $1 per year. Furthermore, the alimony order would terminate upon the death of either party or the plaintiffs remarriage. The defendant expressly was permitted to seek modification of the alimony award pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86 (b) if the plaintiffs financial needs were altered as a result of cohabitation. In accordance with § 46b-86 (a), however, the alimony order was otherwise “nonmodifiable as to term and amount.” The provision precluding modification specifically provided that there was to be “no modification of the periodic alimony orders based on the [plaintiffs] employment, earnings or her income from any source, earned or unearned.”

With regard to the parties’ personal property, the plaintiff was awarded all of the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, bric-a-brac and appliances located in the New Canaan residence, and the defendant was awarded the same contents in what the court referred to as his Nor-walk residence. It is undisputed, however, that this Nor-walk residence, and the alleged contents within, were in fact nonexistent. See part IC of this opinion. Additional details concerning the court’s property distribution orders will be set forth as required.

On June 18, 2007, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion to open and reargue and for articulation and clarification of several of the court’s financial orders (postjudgment motion). In relevant part, the defendant claimed that the terms and conditions concerning the alimony payments—specifically, the provisions providing for the modifiability and nonmodifiability of the order—were in conflict with one another and, therefore, reargument and clarification were necessary to resolve this alleged ambiguity. The court disagreed. In its memorandum of decision, issued in response to the defendant’s postjudgment motion, the court denied the defendant’s requested relief and stated that the provisions concerning the modifiability of the order were not in conflict because the clause permitting the modification of alimony was “relate[d] to cohabitation only.”

The defendant also sought reargument as to the court’s distribution of all the furniture, furnishings and household items located in the New Canaan marital home to the plaintiff. In connection with this claim, the defendant directed the court’s attention to the problematic order awarding him the furniture, furnishings and household items located in the defendant’s “current residence” in Norwalk. Because this residence, along with any personal property contained within, were in fact nonexistent, the defendant claimed that the court mistakenly had awarded the plaintiff all of the marital furnishings and household items. According to the defendant, these marital furnishings and household items included the defendant’s own home office equipment, “significant” personal home entertainment items and pieces of art accumulated during the marriage.

In its memorandum of decision on the defendant’s postjudgment motion, the court conceded that its financial orders erroneously had attributed nonexistent furnishings in a nonexistent residence to the defendant. The court went on to state that it was “inclined to grant a new evidentiary hearing on the division of personal property in order to properly and completely allocate the personal property to each of the parties.” Nevertheless, the court refused to open the personal property aspect of the judgment, in part, on the basis of the “ ‘mosaic rule.’ ” The court feared that opening the judgment, even for the limited purpose of reallocating the parties’ personal properly, necessarily would subject the entire complex financial distribution plan to review. Furthermore, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to order a postjudgment reallocation of the parties’ personal property because the language of § 46b~81 expressly calls for the division of marital assets “[a]t the time of [the dissolution] decree . . . .” General Statutes § 46b-81 (a). Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motion to open the personal property component of the financial order. The court noted, however, that an appellate court is neither bound by the “mosaic rule” nor that jurisdictional limitation.

In August, 2007, while the defendant’s postjudgment motion was pending, the defendant also filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to General Statutes § 52-270 (a). The substance of this petition concerned a highly contentious letter that had been erroneously filed with the court by counsel for the plaintiff only weeks into the underlying dissolution of marriage action. The letter was ruled inadmissible at trial but also was attached to a request for production that the plaintiff improperly had filed with the court. In his petition for a new trial, the defendant claimed that the filing of this request constituted a mispleading and a reasonable cause to order a new trial.

In response, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the petition, claiming, inter alia, that the improper filing of the inadmissible letter accompanying the request for production was not a mispleading within the purview of § 52-270 (a). The defendant’s petition for a new trial, therefore, according to the plaintiff, did not state a legally sufficient claim. The court agreed and concluded that because the document was not a pleading, the improper filing of it could not constitute a mispleading. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s petition for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The defendant thereafter appealed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

DISSOLUTION JUDGMENT

The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion with respect to its financial orders by improperly (1) precluding a future court from considering the plaintiffs income in connection with a potential motion to modify alimony, (2) punishing him for being the cause of the marital breakdown and (3) failing to correct its erroneous award regarding personal property in the nonexistent Norwalk residence. The defendant seeks a new trial on the basis of any one of these alleged improprieties.

“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. ... It is within the province of the trial court to find facts and draw proper inferences from the evidence 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. . . . [T]o conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that the court either incorrectly applied the law or could not reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Elia v. Elia, 99 Conn. App. 829, 831, 916 A.2d 845 (2007).

A

The defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion by precluding a future court from considering the plaintiffs income in connection with a motion to modify its alimony order. We disagree.

As set forth previously, the court ordered that the alimony award was nonmodifiable, with the sole exception that the defendant had the right to seek modification in the event of the plaintiffs cohabitation. See General Statutes § 46b-86 (b). The order precluding modification further stated that “no modification of the periodic alimony orders based on the [plaintiffs] employment, earnings or her income from any source, earned or unearned” was to be permitted.

It is a well settled principle of matrimonial law that courts have the authority under § 46b-86 to preclude the modification of alimony awards. See, e.g., Eckert v. Eckert, 285 Conn. 687, 693, 941 A.2d 301 (2008) (“[n]onmodifi cation provisions that are clear and unambiguous . . . are enforceable”); Wichman v. Wichman, 49 Conn. App. 529, 534-35, 714 A.2d 1274, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 910, 719 A.2d 906 (1998). Section 46b-86 (a) itself provides in relevant part that il[u]nless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification . . . any final order for the periodic payment of permanent alimony . . . may at any time thereafter be continued, set aside, altered or modified by said court upon a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party.” (Emphasis added.) “This statute clearly permits a trial court to make periodic awards of alimony nonmodifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wichman v. Wichman, supra, 535. The defendant does not suggest otherwise.

Instead, the defendant takes issue with the language found in the nonmodification provision that explains that a change in the plaintiffs employment or income is not a sufficient justification for modification. The defendant claims that this explanatory language also could be construed by a court in the future as restricting consideration of the plaintiffs income sources should he seek modification of alimony on the basis of cohabitation. The defendant contends that the court was without the authority to issue such a restriction because it conflicts with the language of General Statutes § 46b-82 that expressly calls for the consideration of the parties’ income when fashioning an alimony award. The defendant’s argument is without merit.

The court’s language that is directed at the consideration of the plaintiffs income sources does nothing more than emphasize the point that modification of the alimony award “based on the [plaintiffs] employment, earnings or her income from any source” was not to be sought. That language, however, is entirely unrelated to that portion of the financial order permitting modification under § 46b-86 (b). Indeed, the court in its memorandum of decision on the defendant’s postjudgment motion made clear that the clause permitting modification related only to the plaintiffs cohabitation. The language in question immediately follows the sentence prohibiting modification and in no way implies that it is applicable to the order discussing the defendant’s right to seek modification of alimony in the event of the plaintiffs cohabitation. Furthermore, the section discussing nonmodification is found several paragraphs away from and under a different sectional subheading than the order discussing the defendant’s rights under § 46b-86 (b). Consequently, we fail to see how this superfluous explanatory language reasonably could be read in conjunction with the provision permitting the right to modify should the plaintiff cohabitate. The language pertaining to the nonmodifiabilify of alimony does not hinder the ability of a court from considering the income sources of the plaintiff upon confronting a potential motion to modify alimony pursuant to § 46b-86 (b). Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when ordering the nonmodifiable component of the alimony award.

B

We turn next to the defendant’s claim that the court abused its discretion by fashioning the financial orders with the intention of punishing the defendant for causing the breakdown of the marriage. We disagree.

The defendant contends that certain components of the court’s financial orders, particularly the $700,000 lump sum distribution to the plaintiff from his one-half share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital home and the “substantial portion” of his income included in the alimony award, demonstrate that the property allocation was tainted by a punitive motive. The defendant maintains that this inequitable distribution conflicts with “the principle that alimony is not designed to punish, but to ensure that the former spouse receives adequate support.” Greco v. Greco, 275 Conn. 348, 361, 880 A.2d 872 (2005).

As our Supreme Court has repeatedly stated: “[Judicial review of a trial court’s exercise of its broad discretion in domestic relations cases is limited to the questions of whether the [trial] court correctly applied the law and could reasonably have concluded as it did. . . . With respect to the financial awards in a dissolution action, great weight is given to the judgment of the trial court because of its opportunity to observe the parties and the evidence. . . . Moreover, the power to act equitably is the keystone to the court’s ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of a marriage.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fitzsimons v. Fitzsi-mons, 116 Conn. App. 449, 458-59, 975 A.2d 729 (2009).

Upon our thorough review of the record, we conclude that the financial orders were not fashioned with a punitive motive and were well within the court’s broad discretionary power. We cannot say that the court’s orders concerning the alimony award, the lump sum distribution or the financial plan as a whole were conceived as a means for punishing the defendant. To the contrary, given the parties’ almost thirty year marriage, the amount of the defendant’s earnings, the total value of their marital assets and the fact that the defendant was the cause of the marital breakdown, the financial orders are within the court’s broad discretion. The non-punitive nature of the judgment is further demonstrated by the court’s permitting the defendant to retire upon reaching the age of fifty-nine and having the alimony payments reduced to $1 per year.

C

We next address the defendant’s final claim that takes issue with the court’s financial orders. The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by refusing to open the judgment and to permit reargument to correct certain errors made in connection with the distribution of the parties’ personal property. The defendant urges us to order that the entire dissolution judgment be opened and a full evidentiary hearing be held to resolve properly the reallocation of these assets. We agree in part.

As previously stated, “[t]he standard of review in family matters is that this court will not disturb the trial court’s orders unless it has abused its legal discretion or its findings have no reasonable basis in fact. . . . [W]here the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, these facts are clearly erroneous.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Szegda v. Szegda, 97 Conn. App. 426, 432, 904 A.2d 1266, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 932, 909 A.2d 959 (2006). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cifaldi v. Cifaldi, 118 Conn. App. 325, 331, 983 A.2d 293 (2009).

In this case, the court’s decision was clearly erroneous insofar as it awarded the defendant “[a]ll furniture, furnishings, fixtures, bric-a-brac and appliances in [his] current residence, Norwalk, Connecticut.” As set forth previously, the Norwalk residence and accompanying property were in fact nonexistent. The court acknowledged this mistaken finding in its memorandum of decision issued in response to the defendant’s postjudgment motion and stated that it was inclined to grant a new hearing to sort out this error. The court, however, refused to open the judgment in light of perceived jurisdictional problems and potential “mosaic rule” conflicts.

Although “[w]e will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court”; (internal quotation marks omitted) O’Bymachow v. O’Bymachow, 12 Conn. App. 113, 116, 529 A.2d 747, cert. denied, 205 Conn. 808, 532 A.2d 76 (1987); we may conclude that a court abused its discretion by misapplying the relevant law. Bartel v. Bartel, 98 Conn. App. 706, 713, 911 A.2d 1134 (2006). With respect to its jurisdictional concerns, the court maintained that it was constrained by § 46b-81 from reallocating the parties’ property postjudgment. The court, relying on Rathblott v. Rathblott, 79 Conn. App. 812, 814, 832 A.2d 90 (2003), concluded that it had “no jurisdiction to enter an order dividing the personal property after the [marital dissolution] decree.” This reliance was misplaced.

In Rathblott, the defendant former husband filed a postjudgment motion seeking a hearing to address the division of certain marital personalty three years after the court had rendered judgment dissolving his marriage to his former wife. Id., 815. This property, including the Rathblotts’ furniture, furnishings and miscellaneous tangibles, was not awarded to either party at the time of the dissolution decree. Id., 814. Instead, the court ordered that the Rathblotts were to complete the division of the property on their own. Id. The parties failed to agree on the allocation of this property, and, on the basis of the defendant’s motion, the court ordered that it was to be auctioned. Id., 816.

On appeal, this court reversed the order and concluded that the trial corut lacked the authority to issue orders concerning the distribution of the Rathblotts’ personalty postjudgment. Id. “[A] court’s authority to divide the personal property of the parties, pursuant to § 46b-81, must be exercised, if at all, at the time that it renders judgment dissolving the marriage.” Id., 819.

The present case is distinguishable from Rathblott in two critical respects. First, in this case, the court expressly stated that it “reserve[d] continuing jurisdiction over the division of [the] personal property.” In Rathblott, this court emphasized that cases in which a trial court expressly retains jurisdiction over its orders to ensure they are effectuated are “factually distinguishable” from those cases in which the court does not exercise this authority. Id., 819-20; see, e.g., Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 796-97, 831 A.2d 833, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932, 837 A.2d 805 (2003).

Furthermore, in Rathblott the parties were seeking resolution as to the distribution of property that the court properly had considered and adequately ruled on in its underlying orders. In the case before us, the defendant was requesting that the court correct an erroneous component of its judgment. “It is familiar law that a court has the inherent authority to open, correct or modify its judgments.” Bridgeport v. Triple 9 of Broad Street, Inc., 87 Conn. App. 735, 744, 867 A.2d 851 (2005).

In Rome v. Album, 73 Conn. App. 103, 807 A.2d 1017 (2002), this court addressed the tension between the nonmodifiable nature of personal property orders as required by § 46b-81 and the provisions of General Statutes § 52-212a, which provide for the discretionary opening of judgments. Id., 110. Noting that there was no authority for the position that a trial court should not be allowed to correct a clear oversight in connection with certain marital property orders, this court “conclude[d] that the law does not prevent the exercise of the trial court’s authority to correct an omission in orders transferring personal property in a manner completely consistent with its earlier findings as to its disposition . . . .” Id., 113.

Insofar as the court’s financial orders mistakenly awarded the defendant nonexistent furnishings in a nonexistent residence, the court must retain the authority to correct this error when confronted with a properly filed motion to open the judgment. To conclude otherwise would yield an untenable result. Because our case law is consistent with such an approach, we conclude that neither Rathblott nor § 46b-81 presented an obstacle that prohibited the court from mending its erroneous personal property orders.

Next, we address the court’s conclusion that it could not open the judgment for the limited purpose of reallocating the parties’ personal property without disrupting the “mosaic rule.” Often, an isolated impropriety in a court’s property distribution orders requires a review of all of the financial orders because it is part of the “ ‘carefully crafted mosaic’ ” that comprises the entire asset reallocation plan. Casey v. Casey, 82 Conn. App. 378, 389 n.9, 844 A.2d 250 (2004). “Under the mosaic doctrine, financial orders should not be viewed as a collection of single disconnected occurrences, but rather as a seamless collection of interdependent elements. Consistent with that approach, our courts have utilized the mosaic doctrine as a remedial device that allows reviewing courts to remand cases for reconsideration of all financial orders even though the review process might reveal a flaw only in the alimony, property distribution or child support awards.” Id. The defendant asserts that the “mosaic rule” requires the opening of the entire financial judgment so that the improprieties concerning the personal property orders can accurately be remedied. We disagree.

“Every improper order . . . does not necessarily merit a reconsideration of all of the trial court’s financial orders. A financial order is severable when it is not in any way interdependent with other orders and is not improperly based on a factor that is linked to other factors.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In our view, the court’s personal property distribution orders—including the plaintiffs award of all of the furniture, furnishings, fixtures, bric-a-brac and appliances in the New Canaan marital home and the problematic order awarding the same contents in the nonexistent Norwalk residence to the defendant—are only interwoven insofar as they relate to the parties’ tangible personalty. They have no impact on or relationship to the rest of the court’s financial mosaic and are completely severable from the other financial orders. Indeed, it is clear from the parties’ proposed financial orders that they regarded the tangible household and personal items as severable from the rest of their considerable assets. The plaintiff, in the “Nonretirement Assets” section of the orders she proposed to the court prior to its rendering of the dissolution judgment, requested that she be awarded the contents of the marital home, except for certain items that specifically belonged to the defendant. The defendant countered that all of the personal property be divided equally with any disputes regarding the allocation of these assets being settled by binding arbitration. Furthermore, neither party itemized these assets or attributed values to them in a manner that was consistent with the proposed distribution of their other assets.

It is not necessary, therefore, to remand the case for reconsideration of all of the court’s financial orders. See Montoya v. Montoya, 91 Conn. App. 407, 438, 881 A.2d 319 (2005), rev’d in part on other grounds, 280 Conn. 605, 909 A.2d 947 (2006). Accordingly, we issue a limited remand ordering the court to review only the allocation of the parties’ personal property set forth in §§ six and seven of the court’s May 30, 2007 financial orders in its memorandum of decision.

II

PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL

Finally, we address the defendant’s claim that the court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s petition for a new trial for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We agree with the defendant.

The following additional facts are necessary for our resolution of the defendant’s claim. On September 6, 2006, the first day of the marital dissolution trial, the plaintiff offered a certain three page letter as her first exhibit. The letter purported to be from an individual who the plaintiff believed to be the husband of the defendant’s alleged paramour as well as an incarcerated sex offender. As far as the record reflects, this letter discussed certain events that precipitated the parties’ marital breakdown and was highly prejudicial to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant objected to its admission into evidence, and preliminary argument concerning the admissibility of the letter followed.

On October 17, 2006, the defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude this letter from evidence. The defendant claimed that the letter could not be authenticated properly and that the substance of the letter was inadmissible hearsay. Additionally, the defendant requested that any discussion relating to the specific content of the letter, potentially for the purpose of weighing the prejudicial nature of the document against its probative value, be conducted outside the presence of Judge Tierney. The following day, Judge Tierney ruled that the letter was inadmissible.

In July, 2007, counsel for the defendant, while reviewing the court file, inspected a document entitled “Plaintiffs Second Request for Production of Documents at Trial” (request for production) that the plaintiff had filed with the court on October 12, 2006, just days before the court’s evidentiary ruling on the controversial letter. The defendant’s counsel discovered that a copy of the inadmissible letter had been attached to this request for production by the plaintiffs counsel and, thus, improperly filed and mistakenly included in the court file.

On the basis of this discovery, the defendant filed a petition for a new trial in August, 2007. In his petition, the defendant claimed that the improper filing of the request for production and the attachment of a copy of the highly prejudicial inadmissible letter thereto “constitute[d] mispleading and [was] reasonable cause to order a new trial.” Furthermore, the defendant contended that the introduction of the letter into the court file by the plaintiffs counsel was a blatant attempt to bias the court by placing the letter before it in a deceitful manner that bypassed the rules of evidence.

The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to strike the defendant’s petition for a new trial. She asserted that the petition was legally insufficient because the improper filing of the request for production was not a misplead-ing within the definition of § 52-270 (a). The court agreed with the plaintiff and concluded that the document filed by her counsel was technically not a pleading. In the court’s view, therefore, the improper filing of this document could not constitute a mispleading. The court did note that, in addition to circumstances relating to a mispleading, the statutory basis for a new trial also includes situations involving “ ‘other reasonable cause’ . . . .” The court, however, “left for another day” the determination of whether the defendant could satisfy the reasonable cause provision of § 52-270 (a). Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s petition for failure to state a claim. The defendant thereafter appealed.

We begin our analysis by setting forth the appropriate standard of review. “Because a motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court, our review of the court’s ruling on the [defendant’s motion] is plenary. . . . We take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint that has been stricken and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Moreover, we note that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged. ... It is fundamental that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant’s motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted. . . . Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bloom v. Miklovich, 111 Conn. App. 323, 328, 958 A.2d 1283 (2008).

“Although ... § 52-270 permits the court to grant a new trial upon proof of reasonable cause, the circumstances in which reasonable cause may be found are limited. . . . The basic test of reasonable cause is whether a litigant, despite the exercise of due diligence, has been deprived of a fair opportunity to have a case heard on appeal. ... A new trial may be granted to prevent injustice in cases where the usual remedy by appeal does not lie or where, if there is an adequate remedy by appeal, the party has been prevented from pursuing it by fraud, mistake or accident.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Murphy v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 86 Conn. App. 147, 152-53, 860 A.2d 764 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 910, 870 A.2d 1080 (2005). “[Section 52-270] does not furnish a substitute for, nor an alternative to, an ordinary appeal, but applies only when no other remedy is adequate and when in equity and good conscience relief against a judgment should be granted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jacobs v. Fazzano, 59 Conn. App. 716, 724, 757 A.2d 1215 (2000).

The plaintiff does not contend that the defendant cannot satisfy the reasonable cause test for a new trial on the basis of the underlying facts. Instead, she maintains that the petition itself is technically deficient in that it fails to set forth adequately the claim that a new trial is warranted for “other reasonable cause.” Consequently, the defendant’s petition for a new trial, according to the plaintiff, fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted.

“[T]he [petition] must be read in its entirety in such a way as to give effect to the pleading with reference to the general theory upon which it proceeded, and do substantial justice between the parties. ... As long as the pleadings provide sufficient notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried and do not surprise or prejudice the opposing party, we will not conclude that the [petition] is insufficient to allow recovery.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 Conn. App. 778, 786, 971 A.2d 766, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 915, 979 A.2d 488 (2009).

Upon our careful examination of the petition, construing it in the light most favorable to the defendant, we conclude that a claim for a new trial on the basis of “other reasonable cause” was sufficiently pleaded. There is no question that the plaintiffs filing of the request for production violated Practice Book § 13-9 (e), which provides that “[t]he party serving such request or notice of requests for production shall not file it with the court.” Furthermore, although the primary thrust of the petition is centered on the claim that the filing of the request for production and accompanying inadmissible letter constituted a mispleading, the petition also alleges certain actions on the part of the plaintiff that go beyond the scope of a mispleading, including the allegation that the improper filing “was a blatant attempt to bias the court with respect to important issues in the trial.” The petition further alleges that the plaintiffs improper filing of the letter sought to take advantage of Judge Tierney’s “well known reputation ... for diligently reviewing the entire file in pending actions before [him] . . . .” The reasonable inferences that can be drawn from this allegation are that Judge Tierney accidentally read the offending letter when reviewing the fde, and that it influenced his dissolution judgment and accompanying financial orders. Accordingly, the allegations set forth in the petition and their accompanying implications, if proved, could support the granting of a new trial for “other reasonable cause.” See Davis v. Fracasso, 59 Conn. App. 291, 298, 756 A.2d 325 (2000) (“[o]ther reasonable cause includes every cause for which a court of equity could grant a new trial, such as, for example, fraud, accident and mistake” [internal quotation marks omitted]). We conclude, therefore, that the court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the defendant’s petition for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The dissolution judgment is reversed only as to the erroneous orders concerning the parties’ tangible personal property and the case is remanded for a new hearing on those orders. The dissolution judgment is affirmed in all other respects. The judgment on the petition for a new trial is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Stephen Marshall filed his initial appeal concerning the court’s financial orders as the defendant in docket number AC 30207. Sara Marshall was the plaintiff in that action. Stephen Marshall filed his subsequent appeal with regard to the stricken petition for a new trial in docket number AC 30442. Sara Marshall was the defendant in that action. Subsequently, AC 30207 and AC 30442 were consolidated under Practice Book § 61-7. For clarity and convenience, throughout this opinion we refer to Stephen Marshall as the defendant and Sara Marshall as the plaintiff.

       In a subsequent memorandum of decision on the defendant’s motion to open and reargue and for articulation and clarification, the court found that the plaintiffs 2006 gross weekly earnings were $1299.

       The “mosaic rule” is premised on the concept that “[t]he rendering of judgment in a complicated dissolution case is a carefully crafted mosaic, each element of which may be dependent on the other.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McMellon v. McMellon, 116 Conn. App. 393, 395, 976 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 926, 980 A.2d 911 (2009). The disturbance of a particular financial order, therefore, often requires the reconsideration of all orders. Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 294 Conn. 121, 125 n.4, 981 A.2d 1068 (2009).

       Although the plaintiff styled the motion as a motion to dismiss the petition for a new trial, the trial court properly treated it as a motion to strike because it challenged the legal sufficiency of the petition. We do likewise.

       General Statutes § 46b-86 (b) provides in relevant part: “In an action for . . . dissolution of marriage ... in which a final judgment has been entered providing for the payment of periodic alimony by one party to the other, the [court] may, in its discretion . . . modify such judgment and suspend, reduce or terminate the payment of periodic alimony upon a showing that the party receiving the periodic alimony is living with another person under circumstances which the court finds should result in the modification, suspension, reduction or termination of alimony because the living arrangements cause such a change of circumstances as to alter the financial needs of that party.”

       General Statutes § 46b-82 (a) provides in relevant part: “At the time of entering the decree, the [court] may order either of the parties to pay alimony to the other .... In determining whether alimony shall be awarded, and the duration and amount of the award, the court . . . shall consider the . . . occupation, amount and sources of income [and] employability . . . of each of the parties . . . .” These same factors are relevant in deciding whether an alimony award should be modified. Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 736, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994).

       When presented with a motion to modify alimony brought pursuant to § 46b-86 (b), “once the court finds (1) cohabitation and (2) a change in the financial needs of the party receiving alimony and cohabitating, the court should engage in the . . . consideration of the § 46b-82 factors. . . . The use of the § 46b-82 criteria serves to ensure that the court has an updated picture of the parties’ financial situation.” Gervais v. Gervais, 91 Conn. App. 840, 854-55, 882 A.2d 731, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 919, 888 A.2d 88 (2005). Because we conclude that the language precluding consideration of the plaintiffs income would not be applicable in a motion to modify on the basis of cohabitation, a future court would have no difficulty considering this factor, along with the rest of the criteria enumerated in § 46b-82, when making a potential § 46b-86 (b) determination.

       General Statutes § 46b-81 (a) provides for the assignment of marital assets “[a]t the time of entering [the dissolution] decree . . . .”

       Section six of the court’s financial orders provides: “The [plaintiff] shall receive as her own assets, free and clear of any claims by the [defendant], the following items of personal property:
      “[a] The $800 loan set forth in the [defendant’s] December 12, 2006 financial affidavit. Paragraph IV H.5.
      “[b] 2002 Mercedes Benz E320 automobile.
      “[c] All furniture, furnishings, fixtures, bric-a-brac and appliances located at 307 Okenoke Ridge, New Canaan, Connecticut.
      “[d] [The] [plaintiffs attorney’s retainer held on account.”

       Section seven of the court’s financial orders provides: “The defendant shall receive as his own assets, free and clear of any claims by the [plaintiff], the following items of personal property:
      “[a] 2005 Porsche Carrera S automobile.
      “[b] Unvested IBM restricted stock.
      “[c] Unvested IBM stock options.
      “[d] Wine collection valued in the [defendant’s] financial affidavit at $19,753 regardless of the current fair market value of [the] said wine collection.
      “[e] [The defendant’s] personal [e]ffects such as clothing, books, documents, sports equipment, gifts he received, material from his family and employment and the Kraus oil painting, that are currently located at 307 Okenoke [Ridge], New Canaan, Connecticut;
      “[f] All furniture, furnishings, fixtures, bric-a-brac, and appliances in the defendant’s current residence, Norwalk, Connecticut.
      “[g] [The] [defendant's attorney’s fees held on account.”

       The plaintiff claims that the defendant’s failure to list specific values for the disputed personalty in his financial affidavit was “an admission” that these assets were valueless. See O’Bymachow v. O’Bymachow, supra, 12 Conn. App. 118-19 (court entitled to conclude that “ ‘unknown’ ” value attributed to plaintiffs businesses in financial affidavit was zero). Consequently, the plaintiff argues that any error with respect to the distribution of this property was either harmless or induced by the defendant.
      Although we recognize that “a misrepresentation of assets and income is a serious and intolerable dereliction on the part of the affiant which goes to the very heart of the judicial proceeding”; (internal quotation marks omitted) Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn. App. 590, 596, 976 A.2d 69, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918, 984 A.2d 68 (2009); we conclude that the defendant was not attempting to misrepresent the value of his assets in his financial affidavit. Unlike the party in O’Bymachow, the defendant did not attribute an “unknown” value to these assets. Instead, the defendant simply proposed that all of the personal property that was not specifically valued in his affidavit—including the disputed furniture, furnishings, fixtures and appliances in the marital home—be divided equally. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim that the court’s error was harmless or induced by the defendant’s failure to value this personalty fails.

       General Statutes § 52-270 (a) provides in relevant part: “The [court] may grant a new trial ... for mispleading ... or for other reasonable cause . . .

       Portions of the plaintiffs brief that refer to the colloquy between Judge Tierney and the defendant concerning whether Judge Tierney actually reviewed the improperly filed letter have been stricken. Accordingly, we do not consider this content in our disposition of this case.

       “A petition for a new trial is collateral to the action in which the new trial is sought and by its nature is a distinct and separate proceeding. . . . [It] is instituted by writ and complaint served upon the adverse party in the same manner as in any other new action. Although the action so stated is collateral to the action in which the new trial is sought, it nevertheless is a distinct suit in itself.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Redding v. Elfire, LLC, 98 Conn. App. 808, 818-19, 911 A.2d 1141 (2006). Because the petition for a new trial is essentially the procedural equivalent of a complaint, it follows that the broad construction of pleadings applies with equal force to a petition for a new trial.

       Because we conclude that the defendant has pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim for a new trial pursuant to the reasonable cause provision of § 52-270 (a), we decline to address whether the improperly filed request for production technically constituted a mispleading.