author: LAVINE, J.

text:
    ABINGTON, LLC v. TOWN OF AVON
    (AC 27413)
    Flynn, C. J., and Gruendel and Lavine, Js.
    Argued February 15
    officially released June 12, 2007

      Robert E. Kaelin, with whom was Amanda F. Lawrence, for the appellant (defendant).

      Lisa A. Zaccardelli, with whom was Wesley W. Horton, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Opinion

LAVINE, J.

This is a tax appeal concerning a portion of an estate atop Talcott Mountain, the highest point in Avon, that commands exceptional views of the Farm-ington River Valley. The estate is comprised of approximately 93.03 acres of land in Avon and the adjoining town of Bloomfield, of which 60.8 acres are restricted as forest land pursuant to General Statutes § 12-107d (c). The steep slopes on the westerly side of the estate afford it privacy. This appeal concerns only the 65.57 acres of land and improvements located in Avon (property), where the primary residence, three single-family cottages and three bams are located. The primary residence has 6964 square feet of space, exclusive of the basement and garage, with eleven rooms, four of which are bedrooms. We must decide whether the trial court properly determined the fair market value of that portion of the property located in Avon. We conclude that it did and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, the town of Avon, appeals from the judgment of the trial court determining that the total assessed value of the property, which is owned by the plaintiff, Abington, LLC, as of October 1, 2003, was excessive and should have been valued at $3,143,512 instead of $4,294,890. The defendant claims that the court’s valuation was clearly erroneous because it allegedly (1) adopted a piecemeal approach in valuing the property (2) based its valuation on dissimilar sales and on a hypothetical property and (3) determined a fair market value that was not supported by the record.

The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s appeal. On the October 1, 2003 grand list, the Avon assessor determined that the fair market value of the property was $4,294,890. The plaintiff challenged the valuation before the Avon board of assessment appeals (board), claiming that it did not represent the true and actual value of the property. After the board declined to reduce the assessment, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a.

At trial, the assessor testified as to how he had calculated the fair market value of the property using the cost approach to valuation. He assigned the following values to the property’s various components:

Primary residence on two acre site $3,002,740

Three cottages $466,210

Bams and sheds $67,430

Land for cottages/sheds/bams $750,000

Forest land $8512

In addition to testimony from the assessor, the court heard testimony from an expert for the defendant and an expert for the plaintiff as to the proper valuation of the property. The experts for both parties testified at length as to the uniqueness of the property and the variety of valuation methods they had utilized in calculating the property’s fair market value. The defendant’s expert, Marc P. Nadeau, calculated the property’s value at $4,850,000. The plaintiffs expert, Christopher A. Italia, calculated the subject property’s value to be $3,050,000. In explaining his approach to valuation, Italia testified that because there were no properties that truly were comparable to the property, he concluded that the most accurate way to value it was to value its component parts. More specifically, Italia concluded that he could consider separately and value independently the property as a primary residence with three acres of land, three houses and excess land. Utilizing the comparative sales approach and the cost approach, Italia valued the primary residence at $2.5 million.

The court issued a memorandum of decision in which it reviewed the testimony of the assessor, Italia and Nadeau. The court explained how it utilized a variety of methodologies in calculating its valuation because the property was one of a kind and contained a variety of components. The court found the value of the property to be $3,143,512, selecting Italia’s value for the primary residence, a hybrid value for the cottages and outbuildings and the statutory amount for the forestry land. The court ascribed the following values to the property’s different components:

Primary residence $2.5 million

Three cottages $570,000

Barns and sheds $65,000

60.8 acres of forest land $8512

This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claims, we first set forth the well settled legal principles underlying a § 12-117a tax appeal, as well as our applicable standard of review. “In § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer’s] property. ... At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property. . . . Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was overassessed, the trial court [will] then undertake a further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that would be just. . . . The trier of fact must arrive at [its] own conclusions as to the value of [the taxpayer’s property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value ....

“We review the trial court’s conclusion in a tax appeal pursuant to the well established clearly erroneous standard of review. Under this deferential standard, [w]e do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. Rather, we focus on the conclusion of the trial court, as well as the method by which it arrived at that conclusion, to determine whether it is legally correct and factually supported. ... 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.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 22-23, 807 A.2d 955. (2002). We now address each of the defendant’s claims in turn.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly adopted a piecemeal approach in valuing the property. In the memorandum of decision, the court explained that because the property was unique, it determined the fair market value of the entire property by combining the value of each of its components. Relying on National Amusements, Inc. v. East Windsor, 84 Conn. App. 473, 854 A.2d 58 (2004), the defendant asserts that it is not appropriate to divide a single property into segments and assign a value to each when determining the fair market value of the entire property. We are not persuaded because we conclude that given the absence of comparable property, the court utilized proper valuation methods in determining fair market value.

“Valuation is a matter of fact to be determined by the trier’s independent judgment. ... In actions requiring such a valuation of property, the trial court is charged with the duty of making an independent valuation of the property involved. . . . [N]o one method of valuation is controlling and . . . the [court] may select the one most appropriate in the case before [it]. . . . Moreover, a variety of factors may be considered by the trial court in assessing the value of such property. . . . [T]he trier arrives at his own conclusions by weighing the opinions of the appraisers, the claims of the parties, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value, and then employs the most appropriate method of determining valuation. . . . The trial court has broad discretion in reaching such conclusion, and [its] determination is reviewable only if [it] misapplies or gives an improper effect to any test or consideration which it was [its] duty to regard.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Route 188, LLC v. Middlebury, 93 Conn. App. 120, 124, 887 A.2d 958 (2006).

A review of the record reveals that the court’s finding regarding the fair market value of the property was legally correct and factually supported. In arriving at an overall conclusion as to the value of the property, the court weighed the opinions of the appraisers, the circumstances surrounding the property, including the application of the forestry designation and its site visit, in which it inspected the property, and the interior of the main residence. See id.

In its brief, the defendant argues that the court recognized the principle espoused in National Amusements, Inc., namely, that the essence of a tax appeal is to value properties as a whole, and then completely disregarded it in proceeding to value segments of the property. Although the defendant contends that the court’s citation of National Amusements, Inc., is inconsistent with its approach to valuation, the defendant failed to move for an articulation. In any event, the defendant misinterprets National Amusements, Inc. In that case, we considered whether a plaintiff in a § 12-117a appeal may limit the parameters of the court’s valuation determination by challenging in its pleadings only one portion of the assessment. See National Amusements, Inc. v. East Windsor, supra, 84 Conn. App. 478-81. We held that it may not, reasoning that such a limitation on the court’s independent determination of the value of the taxpayer’s assessed property would require the court to afford presumptive validity to the assessor’s valuation of the uncontested portions. Id., 481. We emphasized that no judicial presumption exists as to the validity of the assessor’s conclusions, as the court must reach an independent determination without regard to prior determinations. Id., 480. We did not hold, as the defendant suggests, that it is improper for a court to consider the value of a subject property’s component parts in determining its total fair market value, nor can the defendant’s argument reasonably be seen as a logical extension of the ruling in National Amusements, Inc.

It is particularly appropriate in a case such as this that the trial court be permitted to use a flexible approach and not be constrained to adopt one valuation methodology. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Middletown, 77 Conn. App. 21, 33, 822 A.2d 330 (“[t]he court’s ultimate goal is to establish the true and actual value of the subject property and ... it is a question of fact for the trier as to whether the method used for valuation appears in reason and logic to accomplish a just result. . . . [No] particular method must be utilized [and valuation principles shall not] serve to limit the court’s discretion to choose the method that it believes will result in the fairest approximation of the subject property’s value.” [Citation omitted.]), cert. denied, 265 Conn. 901, 829 A.2d 419 (2003). In this vein, we find it worth noting that both the assessor and Nadeau also considered the values of the components of the property in determining their opinions as to the property’s fair market value. We see no basis for disturbing the discretion of the trial court in considering the evidence it had before it as to the value of the property’s component parts in calculating the value of the whole property. The court’s valuation was not clearly erroneous.

II

The defendant next claims that given that the property is one of a kind, the court improperly relied on Italia’s comparable sales, which were situated in subdivisions on considerably less land than the property, in calculating the value of the primary residence. The defendant alleges that the court’s valuation of the property in its entirety is clearly erroneous because it was based on a hypothetical, imaginary property that consisted of a house on a three acre parcel in a subdivision on a ninety-three acre mountaintop site. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s claim. Italia testified that despite the fact that there were no true comparable properties, there are several properties in Avon that have comparable views and are of a quality, size and condition similar to that of the primary residence. In general, these properties consist of a primary residence located on three acres of land. Accordingly, Italia testified that in using the comparative sales approach, he determined that a lot size of three acres should be allocated to the primary residence on the basis of his analysis of sales in surrounding areas. Italia chose three properties as comparable. Italia testified as to the features of the comparable properties and their values. He then indicated to the court that he had made adjustments to the fair market values of these comparable properties when calculating the value of the property’s primary residence.

In adopting Italia’s valuation of the primary residence, the court stated the following: “[S]ales one and two . . . are strikingly similar to the subject primary residence. Sale one . . . contains 3.08 acres of land overlooking the Farmington River Valley. This sale, occurring on December 9, 2003, for $2,525,000, is a single-family home with nine rooms and 5239 square feet of above grade living space. Sale two . . . contains 3.32 acres of land with excellent views of the Farm-ington River Valley. This sale occurred on July 14, 2003, for $2,275,000 and consists of a single-family home with nine rooms above grade covering 5502 square feet. The finished basement is 1776 square feet and has 1.1 bathrooms.” Consequently, the court was persuaded that “Italia’s sales one and two . . . support a finding that the primary residence value, including the site [of three acres] . . . was $2.5 million.”

In reaching its independent conclusion as to the property’s valuation, the court explicitly discredited Nadeau’s appraisal and adopted Italia’s appraisal because it was persuaded that it represented a more accurate approximation of fair market value. Italia testified that in calculating a fair mar ket value for the unique property, he utilized a combination of the cost approach, the comparative sales approach and the income approach and explained to the court, in detail, his methods and calculations. “[T]he determination of the credibility of expert witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony is within the province of the trier of facts, who is privileged to adopt whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible. . . . [I]t is the proper function of the court to give credence to one expert over the other.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Melillo v. New Haven, 249 Conn. 138, 151, 732 A.2d 133 (1999). The court was persuaded that Italia’s comparable properties were similar to the property. The court also was persuaded by Italia’s approach in combining the values of the property’s different components to determine the value of the entire property given its uniqueness. On the basis of our review of the transcripts and exhibits, we are convinced that Italia employed a legally permissible method in calculating his appraisal value. The court’s reliance on Italia’s comparable sales in its valuation of the property was not clearly erroneous.

Ill

The defendant’s final claim is that the court’s valuation of the property is not supported by the record because the court failed to make adjustments for the fact that (1) the property was purchased almost twenty years ago for $6 million, (2) the primary residence alone was insured for $4,280,000 and (3) Michael Konover, who resides on the property along with Victoria Konover, testified that he would not accept $3,050,000 to sell the property. The defendant also argues that the court’s valuation was improper because there was “clear evidence that the assessor in valuing Italia’s own comparable sales placed values lower than the actual sales price on them.” The defendant alleges that on the basis of the entire evidence, it is clear that a mistake has been made, a just result was not accomplished and that the court ignored reality. We disagree.

As emphasized previously, the court “must arrive at [its] own conclusions as to the value of the [taxpayer’s property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and [its] own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) National Amusements, Inc. v. East Windsor, supra, 84 Conn. App. 480.

The defendant concedes that the court was free to credit such testimony and evidence as deemed appropriate. As stated earlier, we are persuaded that in determining the property’s value, the court properly reviewed the evidence before it, considered the accepted methodologies employed by the assessor, Italia, and Nadeau, and relied on its own view of the site. With regard to the defendant’s first and second claims, the purchase price of the property some twenty years ago and the insured value of the primary residence are marginally relevant at best in determining the property’s present fair market value. Likewise, the fact that the Konovers would not accept $3.05 million for the property does not mean that the court’s valuation constituted a mistake or that a just result was not accomplished. Finally, the fact that the assessor placed lower fair market values on Italia’s comparable properties than the prices they sold for does not make the court’s reliance on these values improper. We find nothing in the record to warrant a conclusion that the court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. They are supported by the evidence, the court’s own view of the property and properties as comparable as any could be to this unique property in Avon.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The cottages cannot be sold or taxed separately because they do not exist as separate lots and have no frontage and, therefore, do not comply with local planning and zoning regulations.

       The plaintiff, Abington, LLC, is a limited liability company holding the property on which Michael Konover and Victoria Konover reside.

       General Statutes § 12-117a provides in relevant part: “Any person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the board of tax review or the board of assessment appeals, as the case may be, in any town or city may, within two months from the date of the mailing of notice of such action, make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom, with respect to the assessment list ... to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated .... The court shall have power to grant such relief as to justice and equity appertains . . . .”

       There are three accepted methods of valuation that may be used for the assessment of real property. They are the comparable sales approach, the income capitalization approach and the cost approach. Four D’s, Inc. v. Mattera, 25 Conn. App. 308, 315, 594 A.2d 484 (1991).
      “The comparable sales approach is also known as the market data approach or sales comparison approach. ... It is a process of analyzing sales of similar recently sold properties in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price of the property being appraised. . . . After identifying comparable sales, the appraiser makes adjustments to the sales prices based on elements of comparison.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sun Valley Camping Cooperative, Inc. v. Stafford, 94 Conn. App. 696, 702 n.8, 894 A.2d 349 (2006).
      “The income capitalization approach consists of the following seven steps: (1) estimate gross income; (2) estimate vacancy and collection loss; (3) calculate effective gross income (i.e., deduct vacancy and collection loss from estimated gross income); (4) estimate fixed and operating expenses and reserves for replacement of short-lived items; (5) estimate net income (i.e., deduct expenses from effective gross income); (6) select an applicable capitalization rate; and (7) apply the capitalization rate to net income to arrive at an indication of the market value of the property being appraised.
      . . . The process is based on the principle that the amount of net income a property can produce is related to its market value.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 702 n.9.
      “Under the cost approach, the appraiser estimates the current cost of replacing the subject property with adjustments for depreciation, the value of the underlying land and entrepreneurial profit. . . . This approach is particularly useful in valuing new or nearly new improvements and properties that are not frequently exchanged in the market.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 702 n.10.

       We note that our Supreme Court consistently has held that the visual observations made by the trier on a visit to the property are as much evidence as the evidence presented for its consideration by the witnesses under oath.

        See, e.g., Hensley v. Commissioner of Transportation, 211 Conn. 173, 178 n.3, 558 A.2d 971 (1989).

       Italia’s value of the primary residence included the site value of three acres. He characterized the additional 1.8 acres as excess acreage and valued it at $120,000, testifying that he had never seen an assessment card in which land outside the primary residence would be assigned or ascribed a lot value. We note that the assessor followed a somewhat different approach in valuing the property. The assessor ascribed two acres to the primary residence and then an acre to the each of the three cottages. Emphasizing that the property could not be divided for purposes of sale due to zoning regulations and setback requirements, the court rejected the approach taken by the assessor. Instead, the court found that out of the 65.6 acres of land in Avon, 60.8 acres consist of forest land, leaving 4.8 acres in support of the primary residence, cottages and bams.

       Italia stated that he chose these three properties because they were transferred between September, 2002, and December, 2003, “are similar with respect to views and other physical characteristics of the house being newer construction, size of the dwellings, number of bedrooms . . . and were the three most comparable houses [he] felt existed in the town of Avon at the time of the revaluation.”

       The court stated: “A review of the comparable sales selected by Nadeau show little resemblance to the subject. Sales one and five are in Lyme; sale two is in Cheshire; sale three is in Farmington; and sale four is in Old Lyme. Sale one is an antique sixteen room, five bedroom home built in 1790 on twenty-seven level acres selling in 2002 for $3.8 million. It is comparable to a bed and breakfast, not the subject property. Sale two is a fifteen room, four bedroom home on thirty acres of rolling land selling in 2001 for $4 million. Sale four is an eight room, four bedroom, 6282 square foot house on 21.47 acres selling in 2002 for $3,558,600. . . . None of these sales contain land that is restricted in use as is the subject.”


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HARPER, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    ALFRED E. MITCHELL ET AL. v. MEDICAL INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE
    (AC 27360)
    Schaller, Harper and Lavine, Js.

      Argued February 6
    officially released June 19, 2007

      Brian W. Smith, for the appellant (defendant).

      Andrew A. Cohen, with whom, on the brief, wasAlex J. Cuda, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
   Opinion

HARPER, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange doing business as MIIX Insurance, was obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs, physicians Alfred E. Mitchell and Anthony Viola, physician’s assistant Maria Darrow and New Milford Orthopedic Associates, LLC, in the underlying medical malpractice action (underlying litigation). The trial court decided that the defendant was under such a duty because the medical malpractice claim was made during the extended reporting period granted by the terms of the defendant’s insurance policies with the plaintiffs. The defendant claims on appeal that the court misinterpreted the policies’ provisions, as well as the governing regulations of Connecticut state agencies. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts underlying the defendant’s appeal are not in dispute. Mitchell and Viola are physicians and principals in New Milford Orthopedic Associates, LLC (practice). At all relevant times, Darrow was employed by the practice as a physician’s assistant.

Mitchell, Viola and the practice each had separate professional liability insurance policies with the defendant. The three policies, which were identical in all material respects, provided for the commencement of coverage on January 1, 2002, and the termination of coverage on January 1, 2003. Furthermore, each policy was a “claims-made policy,” meaning that coverage under the policy depended on the date that the insured reported the claim to the defendant.

Attached to each policy was an endorsement form containing additional terms relating to the time frame for reporting claims to the defendant. In relevant part, the endorsement form stated: “In the event of termination of coverage, the named insured shall have: 1. written notice by the [defendant] of an automatic extended reporting period of thirty (30) days immediately following the termination of insurance in which claims otherwise covered by this policy may be reported if and only if, the insured does not obtain an extended reporting period endorsement or coverage of such claims under a policy issued by another insurance carrier . . . .” This language was added by the defendant in an effort to comply with the regulations promulgated under General Statutes § 38a-327, which require insurers to include a thirty day “automatic extended reporting period” in all claims-made policies. See General Statutes § 38a-327; Regs., Conn. State Agencies §§ 38a-327-l through 38a-327-4.

On December 19, 2002, less than two weeks before the termination of their insurance policies, the underlying litigation was initiated against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sent a letter notifying the defendant of the underlying litigation, which the defendant received on January 15, 2003. That same day, the defendant sent a letter to the practice denying coverage. Specifically, the defendant took the position that “the automatic extended reporting period immediately following the termination of the insurance is only in effect if the claim is not covered ... by another carrier, by a policy issued by another earner.” It is undisputed that the plaintiffs did not have an insurance policy with another carrier that would cover the claims asserted in the underlying litigation.

The plaintiffs thereafter initiated the present declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination that the policies obligated the defendant to defend and indemnify them in the underlying litigation. Following the parties’ stipulation of facts and submission of briefs, the court issued a memorandum of decision on January 4, 2006, rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The court relied on the policies’ language granting an “automatic extended reporting period of thirty (30) days immediately following the termination of insurance . ...” In that regard, the court wrote: “To find that there is an automatic extended reporting period without the coverage being available for that extended thirty day period would be analogous to having a right with no purpose. The regulation [on which the policies’ language was based] was meant to cure situations such as this one. The [underlying litigation] was filed against the plaintiffs at the end of December. It would have been a covered event if reported on the same day as it was served on the plaintiffs. It was reported to [the defendant] within fifteen days of the termination of the policy and within the thirty day automatic extended reporting period.” Thus, the court declared that the defendant was obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation in accordance with the terms of the insurance policies. Following the court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, the defendants filed the present appeal with this court.

“Interpretation of an insurance policy, like the interpretation of other written contracts, involves a determination of the intent of the parties as expressed by the language of the policy. . . . Unlike certain other contracts, however, where absent statutory warranty or definitive contract language the intent of the parties and thus the meaning of the contract is a factual question subject to limited appellate review . . . construction of a contract of insurance presents a question of law for the court which this court reviews de novo.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vitti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 245 Conn. 169, 174, 713 A.2d 1269 (1998).

Both parties agree that the policies included a provision that afforded the plaintiffs “an automatic extended reporting period of thirty (30) days immediately following the termination of insurance” on January 1, 2003. The parties disagree, however, about whether this provision required the defendant to provide coverage for the medical malpractice claim that was reported during the automatic extended reporting period.

The provision at issue was added to the policies by the defendant in order to satisfy the statutory requirements for claims-made insurance policies, which are codified in §§ 38a-327-l through 38a-327-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. “[I]f the policy comports with the language of the regulation, it will be deemed to provide that same level of protection permitted by the regulation. ... In order for a policy [inclusion] to be expressly authorized by [a] statute [or regulation], there must be substantial congruence between the statutory [or regulatory] provision and the policy provision.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nichols v. Salem Subway Restaurant, 98 Conn. App. 837, 844, 912 A.2d 1037 (2006). Here, neither party disputes that the provision at issue is substantially congruent with, and authorized by, § 38a-327-3 (b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. As such, interpretation of the policies’ language raises a question of statutory interpretation. See Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734, 865 A.2d 428 (2005) (“Administrative rules and regulations are given the force and effect of law. ... We therefore construe agency regulations in accordance with accepted rules of statutory construction.” [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]) Id., 751.

When presented with an issue of statutory construction, our review is plenary. See In re William D., 97 Conn. App. 600, 606, 905 A.2d 696, cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 943, 912 A.2d 479 (2006). Furthermore, “[w]hen construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § l-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re William D., supra, 606.

Finally, “the legislature is always presumed to have created a harmonious and consistent body of law .... [T]his tenet of statutory construction . . . requires [this court] to read statutes together when they relate to the same subject matter .... Accordingly, [i]n determining the meaning of a statute ... we look not only at the provision at issue, but also to the broader statutory scheme to ensure the coherency of our construction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Renaissance Management Co. v. Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, 281 Conn. 227, 238-39, 915 A.2d 290 (2007).

We begin our analysis with an examination of the governing statute and its accompanying regulations. General Statutes § 38a-327 directs the insurance commissioner to “adopt regulations ... to establish standards for insurance policies written on a claims-made basis.” Pursuant to that statutory authority, the commissioner promulgated § 38a-327-3 (b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which requires that all claims-made policies provide “an automatic extended reporting period of at least thirty (30) days upon termination of coverage.” The regulations do not contain a definition of the phrase “automatic extended reported period.” The phrase “automatic extended reporting period coverage,” however, is defined as “coverage for that period of time specified in the policy wherein claims first made after the termination date of the policy but within thirty (30) days of the termination date of the policy will be considered first made during the policy term.” Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 38a-327-l (g).

Because § 38a-327-3 (b) mandates an “automatic extended reporting period” rather than “automatic extended period coverage,” the defendant argues that § 38a-327-3 (b) only requires the provision of additional time within which to report claims. Under this reading, coverage would exist only if the insured purchased additional insurance that specifically included claims arising during the thirty day extended reporting period.

When § 38a-327-3 (b) is read concurrently with the other regulations concerning claims-made policies, it becomes readily apparent that there are fatal flaws in the defendant’s interpretation. Specifically, a “claims-made policy,” as defined in § 38a-327-l (a), is “an insurance policy or an endorsement to an insurance policy that covers liability for injury or damage that the insured is legally obligated to pay . . . arising out of incidents, acts or omissions, as long as the claim is first made during the policy period or any extended reporting period.” (Emphasis added.) Stated differently, under a claims-made policy, the making—or reporting—of a claim automatically triggers coverage.

The fact that § 38a-327-3 (b) does not explicitly state that insurers must provide coverage for claims made during the automatic extended reporting period is inconsequential in light of the definition of “claims-made policy.” Section 38a-327-l (a) establishes that a claim “first made during the policy period or any extended reporting period” will be covered under a claims-made policy. (Emphasis added.) Because the act of reporting a claim initiates coverage, the mandate under § 38a-327-3 (b) that “each claims-made policy . . . provide an automatic extended reporting period” necessarily means that insurers must provide coverage for claims reported during that period.

In this case, the defendant received written notice of the underlying litigation on January 15, 2003, fourteen days after the January 1,2003 termination date. Because the claim was reported within the thirty day automatic extended reporting period, it should have been covered under the plaintiffs’ “claims-made” policies with the defendant. The defendant’s refusal to provide coverage for this claim, notwithstanding its having been reported timely, was contrary to the terms of the policies at issue and § 38a-327-l (a) of the regulations. As such, the trial court declared properly that the defendant was obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 38a-327 provides: “On or before April 1, 1988, the Insurance Commissioner shall adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, to establish standards for insurance policies written on a claims-made basis.”

       General Statutes § l-2z provides: “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”

       The defendant also argues that the policies’ authorization of an “automatic extended reporting period” in conjunction with the option to purchase “unlimited extended reporting period coverage” suggests that coverage is not necessarily afforded to claims made during the automatic extended reporting period. Yet, “unlimited extended reporting coverage,” (or what § 38a-327-3 [d] refers to as “additional extended reporting period coverage”) is entirely different from the coverage provided during the automatic extended reporting period at issue in this case. Accordingly, the policies’ authorization of both types of coverage does not necessarily mean that one circumscribes the scope of the other.

       The defendant resists this conclusion by citing two cases, which, it argues, demonstrate that “the existence of policies in which there is an extended reporting period, but not a concomitant extended coverage period, is not an unheard of situation.” See Federal Ins. Co. v. CompUSA, Inc., 319 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 2003); Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg v. Galizia, 300 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2002). Because neither of the cases cited concerns the inteipretation of Connecticut’s regulations related to claims-made policies, they are inapposite to our analysis.


author: PETERS, J.

text:
    ANTHONY LAPENTA v. BANK ONE, N.A.
    (AC 27738)
    Bishop, Harper and Peters, Js.

      Argued February 12
    officially released June 19, 2007

      Walter A. DeAndrade, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Shelley R. Sadin, with whom, on the brief, was Barbara G. Hager, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

PETERS, J.

A purchaser of property on which a lis pendens has been filed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-325 takes the property subject to the outcome of the lawsuit of which the lis pendens has given the purchaser notice. In this case, the purchaser bought the same piece of property on two separate occasions, first at the foreclosure by sale of the second mortgage and thereafter at the foreclosure by sale of the first mortgage. He claims that his first purchase entitled him to the surplus that arose from the subsequent foreclosure of the first mortgage. Relying on § 52-325, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the first mortgagor. Because we agree with the trial court that the statute precludes the purchaser from asserting any interest in the proceeds of the foreclosure by sale without becoming a party to that action, we affirm the judgment.

On January 31, 2005, the plaintiff, Anthony LaPenta, filed a three count complaint against the defendant, Bank One, N. A., alleging that the defendant, by depriving the plaintiff of $15,932, which remained as surplus proceeds from a foreclosure by sale, had (1) converted the plaintiffs property, (2) obtained property under false pretenses and (3) violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff had no independent legal claim to the surplus and was precluded from asserting an interest in the surplus property by § 52-325, the lis pendens statute. The plaintiff has appealed.

The relevant facts, as stated in the trial court’s memorandum of decision, are undisputed. “[T]he plaintiff . . . was the successful bidder at two separate foreclosure sales concerning property known as 42 Country Lane, Canton, Connecticut. The previous owner of the property, Thaddeus Cierocki, had executed a first and second mortgage to Zirmak Mortgage, Inc. (Zirmak). Zirmak later assigned the first mortgage to GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. (GE), and assigned the second mortgage to the defendant, Bank One, N.A. (Bank One).”

GE brought an action to foreclose its mortgage in January, 2002. Thereafter, the defendant sought to foreclose its mortgage on the property in a separate action that was commenced in June, 2002. Although GE held the primary mortgage and initiated its foreclosure action first, the defendant was the first to complete a foreclosure by sale on August 26, 2002. The plaintiff was the successful bidder at the defendant’s foreclosure by sale on the second mortgage. After fees and expenses, the sale resulted in an award to the defendant of $6614, leaving it with a $30,513 deficiency on its mortgage debt. The defendant elected not to pursue a deficiency judgment against Cierocki.

Subsequently, on October 21, 2002, GE foreclosed its mortgage by sale in a separate proceeding in which the defendant was a party. The plaintiff purchased the property at the GE foreclosure sale for $195,000. On May 12,2003, GE received the full amount of the interest secured by its mortgage, leaving a surplus of $15,932 after fees and expenses. As a party to the GE foreclosure, the defendant made a claim for those surplus proceeds by filing a motion for determination of priorities and supplemental judgment. In a supplemental judgment in this foreclosure action, the trial court found that the defendant had established that it was still owed a balance of $35,124 on its original note from Cierocki and granted the defendant’s motion to award the surplus to it.

Although the plaintiff also attempted to obtain the surplus proceeds of the GE foreclosure from the court, he never became a party to the GE action, and, therefore, the court did not consider the merits of his claim. The court stated: “He filed two appearances in the GE suit—one as a defendant and the other as a ‘petitioner.’ On May 15, 2003, he filed a petition for payment of the surplus proceeds, which the court denied on October 1, 2003 (the same day that the surplus proceeds were awarded to Bank One). On October 20, 2003, [the plaintiff] filed a motion to open the October 1, 2003 supplemental judgment. The court did not consider the motion. [The plaintiff] then appealed the October 1, 2003 supplemental judgment. [The defendant] filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of lack of standing, since [the plaintiff had] never intervened in the underlying matter. The Appellate Court granted the motion to dismiss.”

In light of the undisputed history of the two separate foreclosure proceedings, the trial court in this case rendered summary judgment on two grounds for the defendant on the plaintiffs complaint charging the defendant with conversion, obtaining money under false pretenses and violation of CUTPA. First, the court concluded that the defendant properly had received the surplus from the GE foreclosure because the debt on its mortgage had not been extinguished by the foreclosure of its own mortgage, even though that foreclosure had extinguished its own interest in the property. Second, the court concluded that, because GE properly had filed a lis pendens on the mortgaged property in the Canton land records on December 19, 2001, in accordance with § 52-325, the plaintiff was on notice that his interest that he acquired in the defendant’s foreclosure by sale on August 26, 2002, was subject to the outcome of the GE foreclosure.

On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the court’s granting of the motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff argues that it was improper to award the defendant the surplus from the GE foreclosure by sale because, by purchasing the property at the defendant’s foreclosure sale, he acquired the rights of the debtor, Cierocki, including that debtor’s equitable right of redemption. In his view, the defendant committed conversion, acted under false pretenses and violated CUTPA by taking the surplus resulting from the GE foreclosure.

We conclude that we need not decide whether the plaintiff had a colorable claim to the surplus of the GE foreclosure because of his purchase at the first foreclosure sale. In our view, he cannot prevail because his failure to become a party to the proceedings in which the notice of lis pendens had been filed precluded him from acquiring any interest in the proceeds of the GE foreclosure.

Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs claim, we first set forth the applicable standard of review afforded the court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment. “Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is plenary.” Brown v. Soh, 280 Conn. 494, 500-501, 909 A.2d 43 (2006).

The plaintiff argues that, for two reasons, he is entitled to the surplus funds generated by the GE foreclosure. First, he maintains that he did not have a timely opportunity to intervene in that foreclosure because the judgment of foreclosure of the GE mortgage on October 21,2002, predated his purchase of the property in the defendant’s foreclosure action on November 18, 2002. Second, he contends that, pursuant to Mariners Savings Bank v. Duce, 98 Conn. 147, 118 A. 820 (1922), as a purchaser at the GE foreclosure sale, he automatically became a party to that action.

Each of these claims requires us to interpret the lis pendens statute, § 52-325. “It is well established that statutory interpretation involves a question of law over which we exercise plenary review.” Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166, 180, 914 A.2d 533 (2007). The effect of a lis pendens on after acquired property is well established. “A notice of lis pendens warns all persons that certain property is the subject matter of litigation and that any interests acquired during the pendency of the action are subject to its outcome. . . . Accordingly, any party whose interest in the property arose during the interim period is subject to the final judgment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Duncan, 88 Conn. App. 319, 329, 870 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 902, 876 A.2d 12 (2005).

Section 52-325 expressly addresses the effect of a duly recorded lis pendens on subsequent property interests. It provides that the lis pendens gives notice “from the time of the recording ... to any person thereafter acquiring any interest in such property of the pendency of the action; and each person whose conveyance or encumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently recorded or whose interest is thereafter obtained, by descent or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer, and shall be bound by all proceedings taken after the recording of such notice, to the same extent as if he were made a party to the action. . . . [L]n suits to foreclose mortgages or other liens, the persons whose conveyances or encumbrances are subsequently executed or subsequently recorded shall forfeit their rights thereunder, unless they apply to the court in which such action is brought to be made parties thereto, prior to the date when the judgment or decree in such action is rendered.” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 52-325 (a).

The plaintiffs argument that he did not have a timely opportunity to be made a party assumes that he could not have intervened during the pendency of the GE foreclosure proceedings once the court rendered its initial judgment of foreclosure on October 21, 2002. It is undisputable that § 52-325 required him to intervene “prior to the date when the judgment or decree in such action is rendered.” General Statutes § 52-325 (a). The plaintiff acknowledges that the trial court did not address this issue but offers no explanation for his failure to file a motion for articulation pursuant to Practice Book § 66-5. Although, for this reason, we decline to consider this issue in depth, we note that a foreclosure sale does not become final until the entry of an order of confirmation by the court. Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, 241 Conn. 734, 742, 699 A.2d 73 (1997); Mariners Savings Bank v. Duca, supra, 98 Conn. 152-53. The approval of the GE foreclosure sale by the court on February 3, 2003, substantially postdated the plaintiffs November 18, 2002 purchase of the property. The plaintiffs argument is therefore untenable.

Alternatively, citing Mariners Savings Bank v. Duca, supra, 98 Conn. 155, the plaintiff contends that, as a purchaser at the GE foreclosure sale, he automatically became a party to the foreclosure action by operation of law. This argument, too, was not addressed by the trial court. Accordingly, we decline to address its merits except to note that Mariners Savings Bank did not concern the operation of a lis pendens and thus did not address the predecessor to the current lis pendens statute.

In sum, in this case, the court made unchallenged findings of fact that a lis pendens relating to the defendant’s interest in the GE foreclosure proceedings properly had been filed on December 19, 2001, and that the plaintiff subsequently acquired its interest in the property through the defendant’s foreclosure on November 18, 2002. The court properly held that, because the plaintiff did not avail himself of the opportunity afforded to him by § 52-325 to become a party to the GE foreclosure proceedings, the interest that the plaintiff acquired through the foreclosure of the defendant’s mortgage was subordinate to the interest acquired by the defendant in the GE foreclosure. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of § 52-325.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 52-325 (a) provides: “In any action in a court of this state or in a court of the United States (1) the plaintiff or his attorney, at the time the action is commenced or afterwards, or (2) a defendant, when he sets up an affirmative cause of action in his answer and demands substantive relief at the time the answer is filed, if the action is intended to affect real property, may cause to be recorded in the office of the town clerk of each town in which the property is situated a notice of lis pendens, containing the names of the parties, the nature and object of the action, the court to which it is returnable and the term, session or return day thereof, the date of the process and the description of the property, except that no such notice may be recorded in an action that alleges an illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property unless the complaint or affirmative cause of action contains the date of the initial illegal, invalid or defective transfer of an interest in real property and such transfer has occurred less than sixty years prior to the commencement of such action. Such notice shall, from the time of the recording only, be notice to any person thereafter acquiring any interest in such property of the pendency of the action; and each person whose conveyance or encumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently recorded or whose interest is thereafter obtained, by descent or otherwise, shall be deemed to be a subsequent purchaser or encum-brancer, and shall be bound by all proceedings taken after the recording of such notice, to the same extent as if he were made a party to the action. For the purpose of this section an action shall be deemed to be pending from the time of the recording of such notice; provided such notice shall be of no avail unless service of the process is completed within the time provided by law. This section shall be construed to apply to mechanics’ liens and all other inchoate liens, certificates of which are recorded subsequent to the recording of the notice of the pendency of the action; and, in suits to foreclose mortgages or other liens, the persons whose conveyances or encumbrances are subsequently executed or subsequently recorded shall forfeit their rights thereunder, unless they apply to the court in which such action is brought to be made parties thereto, prior to the date when the judgment or decree in such action is rendered.”

       Significantly, the plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the trial court’s finding that GE properly filed a lis pendens on the mortgaged property in the Canton land records on December 19, 2001, in accordance with § 52-325.

       The plaintiff argues that he is entitled to the surplus from the GE foreclosure by sale because the defendant’s foreclosure by sale extinguished any rights that the defendant still might have had in the property. Although the plaintiff is correct that the defendant’s foreclosure extinguished its right to collect its debt from the mortgagor, the defendant was not thereby foreclosed from pursuing other equitable actions on its mortgage. See New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer, 244 Conn. 251, 267, 708 A.2d 1378 (1998). As a proper party in the GE foreclosure by sale, the defendant retained the equitable right to recover the remainder of its debt, although it was precluded by General Statutes § 49-1 from instituting any action other than a deficiency judgment against the original mortgagor. See Id.

        Indeed, the plaintiffs attempt to obtain the surplus from the GE foreclosure through the present action could readily be viewed as a collateral attack on the judgment in the GE foreclosure action. As our Supreme Court has stated, “[our courts] have strongly disfavored collateral attacks upon judgments because such belated litigation undermines the important principle of finality. . . . The law aims to invest judicial transactions with the utmost permanency consistent with justice. . . . Public policy requires that a term be put to litigation and that judgments, as solemn records upon which valuable rights rest, should not lightly be disturbed or overthrown.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Meinket v. Levinson, 193 Conn. 110, 113, 474 A.2d 454 (1984). In light of the plaintiffs failure to avail himself of the opportunity to become a party to the GE foreclosure, the trial court’s judgment can also be upheld on the alternate ground that any other ruling improperly would have permitted the defendant to take a second bite of the apple.


text:
    SARAH LUSA v. ROBERT J. GRUNBERG
    (AC 27582)
    Harper, Lavine and Peters, Js.

      Argued March 15
    officially released June 19, 2007

      Steven R. Dembo, with whom, on the brief, was P. Jo Anne Burgh, for the appellant (defendant).

      Susan Boyan, for the appellee (plaintiff).

      Kerry A. Tarpey, guardian ad litem for the minor children.
   Opinion

PETERS, J.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-215b, in awarding child support, a court must consider and apply statutory child support and arrearage guidelines unless application of the guidelines is inequitable or inappropriate under the circumstances. See Unkelbach v. McNary, 244 Conn. 350, 372, 710 A.2d 717 (1998). To enter child support orders that deviate from the presumptive support amount, the court must make specific findings on the record to explain its reasons for doing so. Id. In this case, a father claims that the court’s order modifying his support obligation must be set aside because of an inconsistency between the court’s written articulation and its prior oral statement of the reasons for its order deviating from the support guidelines. Because we do not agree with the father that the oral decision and the articulation are irreconcilable, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On April 5, 2006, the plaintiff, Sarah Lusa, filed an amended application for custody of the parties’ two minor children. After receipt of individual financial affidavits as required by Practice Book § 25-30 (a) and child support guidelines worksheets in compliance with Practice Book § 25-30 (e) from each parent and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an oral decision ordering joint custody and ordering the defendant, Robert J. Grunberg, to pay child support in the amount of $600 a week. The defendant filed a motion for articulation, which the court granted by filing a written memorandum of decision that elaborated on the court’s decision without changing the amount of the support order. The defendant has appealed.

I

The defendant first claims that the court improperly altered its basis for decision by making a new finding that he owned Bookends 2, LLC (Bookends 2), when the court had made no such finding in its oral decision. The defendant claims that this finding deviated from the finding in the oral decision that he owned a different company, G & S Realty, Inc. (G & S Realty). The defendant argues that by omitting G & S Realty and adding Bookends 2 to its findings, the court improperly altered its reasoning for its award of child support in its articulation. We disagree.

Our review of the court’s articulation requires us to construe the judgment of the trial court. “The construction of a judgment is a question of law for the court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Munson v. Munson, 98 Conn. App. 869, 872, 911 A.2d 1158 (2006).

As a general rule, “[a]n articulation is appropriate where the trial court’s decision contains some ambiguity or deficiency reasonably susceptible of clarification. ... An articulation may be necessary where the trial court fails completely to state any basis for its decision ... or where the basis, although stated, is unclear. . . . The purpose of an articulation is to dispel any . . . ambiguity by clarifying the factual and legal basis upon which the trial court rendered its decision, thereby sharpening the issues on appeal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fantasia v. Milford Fastening Systems, 86 Conn. App. 270, 283, 860 A.2d 779 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 919, 866 A.2d 1286 (2005). “An articulation is not an opportunity for a trial court to substitute a new decision nor to change the reasoning or basis of a prior decision.” Koper v. Koper, 17 Conn. App. 480, 484, 553 A.2d 1162 (1989). If, on appeal, this court cannot reconcile an articulation with the original decision, a remand for a new trial is the appropriate remedy. See Munson v. Munson, supra, 98 Conn. App. 875. Such a remedy, however, is appropriate only when “ [t]he crucial findings of fact in the memorandum of decision are inconsistent and irreconcilable, and the articulation obfuscates rather than clarifies the court’s reasoning.” Id.

A

In our construction of the judgment in this case, we first set forth the oral decision. The trial court stated that it “ [found] that the plaintiff [was] generally credible as to her testimony. The defendant and [his father] David Grunberg . . . [were] generally not credible with respect to financial issues to which they testified, more specifically, as to the ownership of the assets and the three family owned businesses.

“The court having heard the testimony, [found] that in March, 2004 . . . David Grunberg transferred to the defendant a 45 percent interest in . . . three family owned businesses. In exchange for that, the defendant gave back a note in the amount ... of $500,000 for that 45 percent interest.

“Based on other evidence presented, the court [found that] it is more likely than not that David Grunberg made this transfer at that time in an effort to understate his total assets for purposes of his own divorce, which was held eight days later. Not only did he undervalue the total value of his assets, but he also underestimated the remaining 55 percent of the business, valuing it at less than $200,000, when eight days previously he had sold a smaller portion of the business, 45 percent, for $500,000.

“The court also [found] that both [David] Grunberg’s testimony and the defendant’s testimony—that the defendant no longer has an ownership interest in the business—[were not] credible. David Grunberg claim[ed] that the defendant could [not] make the monthly payments required by the note. So, on January 1, 2004, the defendant returned his ownership interest [in] the businesses to [David] Grunberg and, in exchange, David Grunberg forgave the note.”

The court listed several reasons why it did not find the testimony of the defendant and David Grunberg to be credible and ultimately found that “the defendant presently [did] have a 45 percent ownership interest in at least three businesses: [Bookends], Aircraft Book and News, LLC [Aircraft Book and News], and G & S Realty.”

The court then discussed the other reasons why the defendant had “available to him substantial assets over and above his stated weekly income, with which he is able to pay child support.” The court indicated that the defendant had supplemented his stated income by selling assets and by receiving money from David Grunberg. The court noted that the defendant’s enhanced income also was evidenced by his ability to purchase a $20,000 Harley Davidson motorcycle by means of an automobile loan.

“The court having reviewed the child support guidelines submitted by the plaintiff, [found] that the income that the plaintiff attributes to the defendant [is] not unreasonable under all of the circumstances . . . .” After noting the limited earnings of the plaintiff, the court found that “there [was] reason to deviate from the child support guidelines on the basis of the substantial disparity in income between the two parties, the fact that the defendant ha[d] substantial assets, as the court has already noted.” The court also cited the best interests of the children as another reason to deviate from the presumptive child support award under the guidelines.

The court, for these reasons, ordered the defendant to pay $600 per week in child support. This was a $90 deviation from the amount indicated on the child support guidelines worksheet filed by the plaintiff.

B

To assist our construction of the judgment, we next set forth the relevant portions of the defendant’s motion for articulation and the court’s written decision. On June 9, 2006, the defendant requested an articulation regarding “whether the court’s finding that the defendant holds a [45] percent ownership interest in G & S Realty . . . was, in any way, relevant or material to its determination of the child support award and, if so, the manner in which the court utilized this finding to determine the appropriate amount of support.” The defendant also requested that the court articulate “the evidentiary basis for the court’s finding that the defendant has a [45] percent ownership interest ‘in at least three businesses.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) He requested specifically that the corut “state the other businesses as to which the court finds that the defendant has a [45] percent ownership interest, as well as the evidentiary basis for such finding.”

Granting the motion for articulation, the court issued a written memorandum of decision on June 23, 2006. In its written decision, the court reiterated its findings regarding the credibility of the defendant, the plaintiff and David Grunberg. The court then described the evidence that had been presented to it: “The parties filed financial affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets. In addition, [the plaintiff] submitted a written ‘summary of [the defendant’s] income,’ which purported to be a summary of [the plaintiffs] proof.

“For purposes of determining the orders of child support and attorney’s fees, the court found the [plaintiffs] financial affidavit to be credible and an accurate statement of her earnings, liabilities and assets. Thus, for purposes of calculating presumptive child support, the court adopted [the plaintiffs] income as set out in her financial affidavit.

“As to [the defendant’s] income, the court found that the [defendant’s] financial affidavit did not accurately set forth his income, liabilities and assets. In particular, [the defendant] understated his gross income by, at a minimum, (1) failing to include recurrent in-kind compensation received from his employer; (2) failing to include regularly recurring gifts from his father; and (3) failing to include income attributable to his 45 percent ownership interest in two business [Aircraft Book and News and Bookends] and his 100 percent ownership interest in a third business [Bookends 2.] Additionally, [the defendant] failed to list these businesses as assets on his financial affidavit.

“As to in-kind compensation, [the defendant] has the use of a 2003 Chevrolet Silverado valued at $30,000. His employer pays the monthly loan payment of $585 and reimburses [the defendant] for the cost of gasoline and maintenance—$60 per week. On his financial affidavit, [the defendant] listed this vehicle as an asset but failed to include his employer’s in-kind contribution as income.

“With respect to recurrent gifts and income attributable to [the defendant’s] three businesses, it is difficult to precisely calculate these gifts or the income attributable to the businesses. [David] Grunberg testified that in the past several years, he has, on a regular and recurring basis, given [the defendant] lump sum gifts in cash to assist [the defendant] in meeting his expenses. In particular, [David] Grunberg gave [the defendant] $10,000 in cash to cover the period of November 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006. Thus, from that source alone, [the defendant] had available to him $500 per week as income over and above the income which he declared on his financial affidavit. Other evidence showed that [David] Grunberg’s gift of $10,000 was not deposited by [the defendant] into his checking account or otherwise converted but was retained by [the defendant] as cash and was used by him to, inter alia, purchase money orders to pay child support and to pay [his] credit card bills.

“Further, during this same period, in addition to the $10,000 retained by [the defendant] as cash and paid out by money orders, [the defendant’s] checking account register showed cash deposits averaging $360 per week over and above the [defendant’s] deposits of his salary. Notably and, the court believes, intentionally, these two sources of income were omitted by [the defendant] on his financial affidavit. Based on the totality of the evidence, therefore, the court found that the recurrent gifts from [David] Grunberg and the cash deposits into [the defendant’s] checking account were income to the [defendant] for purposes of calculating the presumptive child support.”

The court further found that the defendant’s weekly expenses were higher than had been reported on his financial affidavit. The court then examined the plaintiffs testimony regarding their lifestyle when she and the defendant lived together. “[The plaintiff] reported that she was not employed when [they] lived together and that [the defendant] paid all of their living expenses, including numerous vacations, shopping trips and trips to casinos. [The plaintiff] testified that at one point, [the defendant] bragged to her that his income was $5000 per week. The court found [the plaintiff] credible in these matters.”

After reciting the evidence before the court, the court concluded that “[t]he only reasonable and logical conclusions to be drawn from the evidence presented at the hearing is that [the defendant’s] gross and net incomes, as set out in his financial affidavit, grossly understate his true income. For purposes of calculating presumptive child support, the court utilized the findings set out [previously], [the plaintiffs] financial affidavit, [the plaintiffs] written summary of [the defendant’s] income and [the plaintiffs] child support guidelines worksheet. Accordingly, the court found [the plaintiffs] net income to be $62 per week, [the defendant’s] net income to be $2715 per week and presumptive child support for the parties’ two children to be $520 per week. Of this $520, $510 per week is attributable to [the defendant] and $10 per week is attributable to [the plaintiff].”

The court noted the “extraordinary disparity” between the parties’ income when addressing the reasons for a deviation. The court also explained that the defendant’s substantial assets, “in the form of a 45 percent ownership in two ‘adult’ businesses and a 100 percent ownership interest in an Internet ‘adult’ business,” formed an additional basis for the court’s deviation from the presumptive child support.

In addition to explaining the history of the transfer of the 45 percent interest in Bookends and Aircraft Book and News, the court found that the defendant’s “2005 federal income tax return indicate[d] that [the defendant] is the owner of Bookends 2 ... . Since no testimony or evidence was adduced that [the defendant] has divested himself of this asset, the court concluded that [the defendant] remained] the owner of this business.” The court then concluded that the defendant had $600,000 in assets available to him, which included both his disclosed and undisclosed assets. Finally, the court noted that its deviation from the child support guidelines was in the best interests of the children.

C

Upon careful review of the court’s written memorandum of decision, we conclude that the trial court’s oral decision and its written articulation are not irreconcilable with regards to the defendant’s ownership of G & S Realty and Bookends 2. The defendant specifically had requested the court to articulate whether the finding that he owned G & S Realty was relevant to the award of child support. The court addressed this concern in its articulation. By not referencing G & S Realty in its articulation, the court implied that the defendant’s ownership of G & S Realty was not a necessary component of its factual findings.

That the court did not consider the ownership of G & S Realty to be material to its award of child support is buttressed by the manner in which the court responded to the defendant’s other relevant request to articulate the factual basis for the defendant’s 45 percent ownership in “at least three businesses . . . .” In its written memorandum of decision, the court reiterated that it did not find the defendant’s and David Grunberg’s testimony to be credible regarding the conveyance of Bookends and Aircraft Book and News. The court found, rather, that the defendant had retained the 45 percent interest in each business as evidenced by the written contract and note. The court then specifically addressed the ownership of the third company, Bookends 2, and explained that the source of the finding of ownership was the defendant’s 2005 federal income tax forms.

The court’s inclusion of Bookends 2 established that the court’s finding that the defendant had a substantial ownership in at least three companies was the reason for the deviation. The fact that the court did not precisely identify the third company was not crucial to its finding reason to deviate from the guidelines, especially considering that the court based its decision to deviate from the guidelines on the nearly $500,000 value of Bookends and Aircraft Book and News.

The defendant maintains, nonetheless, that the court’s finding that he owned G & S Realty was a crucial component of the court’s basis for its decision and that the court’s change in its decision after articulation requires a remand for a new hearing under Munson v. Munson, supra, 98 Conn. App. 875. We do not agree that the ruling in Munson applies in this case.

In Munson, this court ordered a new child support hearing because the trial court had made inconsistent findings both within the memorandum of decision and between the memorandum of decision and articulation as to custody of the children. See id. The decision and articulation in Munson were irreconcilable because custody of the children was the crucial factor in determining child support. Id.

Unlike the articulation in Munson, there is no crucial finding of fact left unresolved or contradicted by the articulation in this case. The court’s basis for deviating from the child support guidelines was the defendant’s ownership of three businesses. In its articulation, the court could have relied on its original finding that G & S Realty was owned by the defendant. See part II C. The fact that the court, upon a closer review of the record, based its written decision on its finding that the defendant’s third company was Bookends 2, instead of G & S Realty, does not change the reasoning of the court’s decision. The court simply clarified that Bookends 2, and not G & S Realty, was the third company that the defendant owned.

II

The defendant’s second claim is that the trial court improperly found that the defendant’s net weekly income was $2715. According to the defendant, the court’s decision was improper because it was based on improper factual and legal conclusions. The defendant argues, in particular, that the court (1) did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that a $10,000 gift he received from David Grunberg was recurrent in nature,

(2) improperly considered the defendant’s financial information that the plaintiff included in her worksheet,

(3) improperly concluded that the defendant had an ownership interest in G & S Realty and (4) should not have included sales of his personal property as “gross income.” We disagree.

A

The defendant’s first claim is that the court improperly determined that the $10,000 gift from David Grunb-erg was part of a pattern of recurrent gifts and therefore properly could be included as part of his gross income. The defendant challenges the court’s determination on two grounds. The defendant argues, as a matter of fact, that the court did not have sufficient evidence to make a finding that the $10,000 gift was part of a recurrent pattern of gift giving. The defendant further argues, as a matter of law, that the gift from his father could not be considered as part of his gross income under Connecticut’s statutory child support scheme. We are not persuaded.

1

We first review the defendant’s claim that the court made an improper factual finding when it determined that the defendant had been receiving recurrent support from his father. “The standard of review in family matters is well settled. . . . Appellate review of a trial court’s findings of fact is governed by 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Elia v. Elia, 99 Conn. App. 829, 831, 916 A.2d 845 (2007).

The defendant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish a pattern of recurrent gifts from David Grunberg might have been plausible if we viewed this gift in isolation. This individual gift, however, was not the only evidence of David Grunberg’s support of the defendant. In addition to the evidence of this $10,000 gift, both the defendant and his father testified that David Grunberg consistently had been supporting the defendant since 2004. This testimony provided the court with a reasonable basis on which to make the factual finding that the $10,000 gift was part of the continuous support that the defendant had been receiving from his father since 2004.* ******

2

We next review the defendant’s claim that court drew an improper legal conclusion by interpreting the language of § 46b-215a-l (11) (B) (v) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies to include gifts from one’s parents, such as the gifts David Grunberg made to the defendant, as gross income for purposes of the regulations. “Resolution of this issue requires us to interpret the statutory scheme that governs child support determinations in Connecticut, and, therefore, constitutes a question of law. . . . [W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision .... When the question of law involves statutoiy interpretation, that determination is guided by well settled principles.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 244 Conn. 357.

Our interpretation of the statutory scheme that governs child support determinations in Connecticut must begin by ascertaining whether the statute has a plain meaning. General Statutes § l-2z; see also Kinsey v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 277 Conn. 398, 407-408, 891 A.2d 959 (2006). In our view, the language of the regulations makes it clear that gifts from parents may be included as a part of a party’s gross income.

The defendant argues that, because the regulations do not expressly include a gift from one’s parents as part of an individual’s gross income, we should interpret the regulations to exclude such gifts. The defendant looks for support to the regulations’ exclusion of “regularly recurring contributions or gifts of a spouse or domestic partner” from the definition of gross income. Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-l (11) (B) (v). According to the defendant, the exclusion of gifts as a source of gross income, when they are made by a spouse or domestic partner, require us to exclude similar gifts made by an individual’s parents. We are not persuaded by this interpretation of the regulations.

Our regulations define “gross income” as “the average weekly earned and unearned income from all sources before deductions, including but not limited to the items listed in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision, but excluding the items listed in subparagraph (B) of this subdivision.” Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-l (11). Although the defendant would have us interpret the list of included items in subparagraph (A) in a restrictive manner that would not encompass a gift from a parent, the phrase “[‘including but not limited to’] convey[s] a clear intention that the items listed in the definition do not constitute an exhaustive or exclusive list.” State v. Jones, 51 Conn. App. 126, 137, 721 A.2d 903 (1998), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 958, 723 A.2d 814 (1999). “Although ‘including’ has been found to be ambiguous by itself, other language may remove the ambiguity, as in this case. ... By adding the phrase ‘but not limited to,’ the statute clearly indicates that ‘including’ is meant as a term of expansion.” (Citation omitted.) Id.

We find it significant that the language of subpara-graph (A) of § 46b-215a-l (11), by its use of the phrase “including but not limited to,” is expansive in its nature but that the language of subparagraph (B) of § 46b-215a-1 (11), by the absence of such an expanding phrase, is, by its terms, exhaustive. In light of this clear statutory distinction, and bearing in mind the principle that our Supreme Court has “interpreted broadly the definition of gross income contained in the guidelines to include items that, in effect, increase the amount of a parent’s income that is available for child support purposes”; Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 244 Conn. 360; we conclude that a gift from a parent properly falls under the category of items included as gross income pursuant to § 46b-215a-l (11) (B) (v) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

B

The defendant next challenges the court’s finding regarding his net income on the ground that the child support guideline worksheet submitted by the plaintiff was not in evidence. Although the worksheet was not submitted as an exhibit, it was a required submission to the court pursuant to Practice Book § 25-30 (e). The defendant claims that even though the worksheet and attached summary was a required submission by the parties, the court could not properly rely on these documents as evidence because they were merely unsworn representations of counsel. We disagree.

The plaintiff indicated on her worksheet that the defendant’s gross weekly income was $2947 and that his net weekly income was $2715. To support this assertion, the plaintiff attached a summary of the defendant’s gross weekly income that included (1) the defendant’s paycheck from Bookends, (2) other checking account deposits, (3) child support paid with money orders, (4) living expenses paid with cash per financial affidavit,

(5) payments made to credit cards not from checkbook,

(6) automobile payments made on behalf of the defendant and (7) automobile fuel reimbursements.

The standard of review for a trial court’s finding of facts, such as the gross income of the defendant, is whether the finding was clearly erroneous. Elia v. Elia, supra, 99 Conn. App. 831. “[W]e recognize that the guidelines create a legal presumption as to the amount of child support payments . . . .” Aley v. Aley, 101 Conn. App. 220, 229, 922 A.2d 184 (2007). We also recognize, however, that “the figures going into that calculation on the worksheet must be based on some underlying evidence.” Id. Furthermore, “[i]t is the trier’s exclusive province to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses and determine whether to accept some, all or none of a witness’ testimony.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sander v. Sander, 96 Conn. App. 102, 112 n.12, 899 A.2d 670 (2006).

Although the defendant argues that the court could not, as a matter of law, rely solely on the plaintiffs worksheet or attached summary as evidence, because it was a representation of counsel, we need not reach that legal issue in the present case. The items listed in the plaintiffs summary were not merely bald assertions, but rather were substantiated by evidence later produced at trial. As corroborated, the worksheet and the summary, therefore, were properly evidence at trial.

C

The defendant’s third claim is that the court made an improper factual finding when it found that the defendant had an ownership interest in G & S Realty. The defendant argues that the court’s inclusion of G & S Realty among the companies he owned was not supported by any evidence. According to the defendant, the court’s deviation in the child support orders was based, at least in part, on his ownership in this company. The defendant argues that such a finding without support is a ground for reversal. We disagree.

Once again, we review the court’s factual findings for clear error. Elia v. Elia, supra, 99 Conn. App. 831. Our review of the record reveals that there was testimony supporting the court’s factual finding that the defendant owned G & S Realty. After testifying that he owned Bookends, Aircraft Book and News and G & S Realty, the defendant’s father was asked if, at some point, the defendant had an ownership interest in those businesses. The defendant’s father answered, “yes.” This testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the court to make the factual finding that the defendant had an ownership interest in G & S Realty.

In addition, the defendant’s testimony, which was given after David Grunberg’s testimony, did not shed any light on the question of the defendant’s ownership of these businesses. At the hearing, the plaintiffs attorney asked the defendant, “What is your ownership of any of those businesses as you sit here today?” (Emphasis added.) In response, the defendant answered, “I don’t own anything of those three businesses.” (Emphasis added.) The plaintiffs attorney then asked the defendant whether he testified about his ownership of those businesses on April 26, 2004. After not being able to recall whether he testified or not, the defendant’s memory was refreshed when he was shown the transcript from that date. The defendant then testified, “Yeah, it says of three of them, I’m 45 percent, and the other one, I’m 95 percent.” Significantly, the defendant never referred to any of these businesses by name dining his testimony.

In light of David Grunberg’s affirmative response to the question of whether the defendant owned three businesses, including G & S Realty, and the ambiguous reference to the businesses during the defendant’s testimony, the court had an adequate evidentiary basis on which to find that the defendant had an ownership interest in all three businesses named by David Grunberg.

D

The defendant’s final claim is that the trial court improperly interpreted § 46b-215a-l (11) (A) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies to include the sale of personal property. The defendant argues that because the sale of personal property is not specifically listed as an item in subparagraph (A), proceeds from such sale could not be used in calculating his gross income. We disagree.

Our review of the court’s interpretation of the § 46b-215a-l (11) (A) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies is plenary. See Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 244 Conn. 357. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, § 46b-215a-l (11) (A) includes an item that encompasses, by its plain meaning, the sale of personal property. Section 46b-215a-l (11) (A) (xi) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies specifically includes the “net proceeds from contractual agreements” as part of the definition of gross income. The sale of personal property, by its nature, stems from contractual agreements that yield a net proceed. We conclude that the court properly included the net proceeds from the sale of the defendant’s property when calculating the defendant’s gross income.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 46b-215b (a) provides: “The child support guidelines established pursuant to section 46b-215a and in effect on the date of the support determination shall be considered in all determinations of child support amounts, including any past-due support amounts, and payment on arrearages and past-due support within the state. In all such determinations, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of such awards which resulted from the application of such guidelines is the amount of support, including any past-due support, or payment on any arrearage or past-due support to be ordered. A specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case, as determined under criteria established by the Commission for Child Support Guidelines under section 46b-215a, shall be required in order to rebut the presumption in such case.”

         The defendant, Robert J. Grunberg; his father, David Grunberg; and the plaintiff were the only witnesses at this hearing.

       The court also ordered the defendant to pay an arrearage in the amount of $120 a week for the period of August 2 until December 23, 2004, ordered both parties to obtain medical insurance for the benefit of the minor children if available through their employers, ordered child support to be paid by wage withholding with payments to be made through the state of Connecticut, forbade both parties from permitting either child to ride on a dirt bike or a motorcycle until the child became eight years old, awarded tax exemptions for both children to the defendant, ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the amount of $2500 and ordered the defendant to pay the preschool expenses of the older child. The court retained jurisdiction regarding payment of postsecondary educational expenses for the two children. The defendant’s appeal has not challenged the validity of any of those orders.

       The court found that the plaintiff was generally credible but found that the defendant and David Grunberg were not.

       As discussed in part II C, the court had sufficient evidence before it to find, as a matter of fact, that the defendant owned G & S Realty. By not including G & S Realty in its articulation, the court merely indicated that the defendant’s possible ownership in that company did not contribute to the court’s reasons for deviating from the child support guidelines.

       Even if we were to construe the judgment in a manner in which the articulation is inconsistent with the original decision, the court’s confusion as to the third company can be more readily characterized as a misstatement or clerical error by the court than as an inconsistent decision. “A distinction . . . must be drawn between matters of substance and clerical errors, the distinction being that mere clerical errors may be corrected at any time even after the end of the term. ... A clerical error does not challenge the court’s ability to reach the conclusion that it did reach, but involves the failure to preserve or correctly represent in the record the actual decision of the court. ... In other words, it is clerical error if the judgment as recorded fails to agree with the judgment in fact rendered . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32, 39-40, 608 A.2d 79 (1992).
      The court’s misstatement about the defendant’s ownership of the third company was a misstatement that did not affect the substance of its decision. As such, it can be construed as a clerical error that the court could properly correct in its articulation.

       The defendant gave the following testimony regarding the support he received from David Grunberg.
      “ [The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Have you sought help from your dad financially since you started having children?
      “[The Defendant]: Oh, yeah. Definitely.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Has he given you financial assistance?
      “[The Defendant]: Yes.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Has it been consistent throughout the last two years?
      “[The Defendant]: Yes.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Did he give you—did he give you things before two years ago?
      “[The Defendant]: Yeah, but not like he has in the last two years.”
      David Grunberg gave the following testimony:
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: “Okay. And when he had children and his relationship with Sarah wasn’t working out, and there was court-ordered support, was he able to pay the support?
      “[The Witness]: At times, yes; and at times, no.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And when he wasn’t able to pay the support, did he come to you for help?
      “[The Witness]: Absolutely.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Has he come to you for help in the last two years regarding support payments?
      “[The Witness]: Yes.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Have you provided help to him?
      “[The Witness]: Yes, I have.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And in what fashion?
      “[The Witness]: Prior to my wife and I—my present wife and I going to Florida, the beginning of November, I had given [the defendant] 10,000 to carry him over a six month period that we were going to be away.

        “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And what did you give him the money for?
      “[The Witness]: Well, to make whatever his needs arose, you know, payments for child support—whatever he needed to sustain himself.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And prior to that have you helped him financially?
      “[The Witness]: Yeah.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And I’m talking between 2004 and this past fall?
      “[The Witness]: Yes. Nothing—I mean not a large payment like that. No, I didn’t give him large, you know, large payments. It was maybe a couple of hundred dollars here and there that he started coming up short with.”

       As the trier of fact, the court had the duty to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony and other evidence. Levy, Miller, Maretz, LLC v. Vuoso, 70 Conn. App. 124, 130, 797 A.2d 574 (2002). In addition to the other support that the defendant received from his father, the court properly could have inferred from the testimony that the $10,000 gift was for the purpose of supporting the defendant over a six month period. According to the testimony of the defendant’s father, the purpose of the gift was to maintain the defendant over a period of time during which the father would be in Florida From this testimony, the court reasonably could infer that the gift was part of the father’s ongoing support for the defendant.

       General Statutes § l-2z provides: “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.”

       Section 46b-215a-l (11) (A) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides: “The gross income inclusions are: (i) salary; (ii) hourly wages for regular, overtime and additional employment not to exceed 45 total paid hours per week; (iii) commissions, bonuses and tips; (iv) profit sharing, deferred compensation and severance pay; (v) tribal stipends and incentives; (vi) employment perquisites and in-kind compensation (any basic maintenance or special need such as food, shelter or transportation provided on a recurrent basis in lieu of or in addition to salary or wages); (vii) military personnel fringe benefit payments; (viii) benefits received in place of earned income including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, strike pay and disability insurance benefits; (ix) veterans’ benefits; (x) social security benefits (excluding Supplemental Security Income [SSI] for aparent or a child), including dependency benefits on the earnings record of an insured parent that are paid on behalf of a child whose support is being determined; (xi) net proceeds from contractual agreements; (xii) pension and retirement income; (xiii) rental income after deduction of reasonable and necessary expenses; (xiv) estate or trust income; (xv) royalties; (xvi) interest, dividends and annuities; (xvii) self-employment earnings, after deduction of all reasonable and necessary business expenses; (xviii) alimony being paid by an individual who is not a party to the support determination; (xix) adoption subsidy benefits received by the custodial parent for the child whose support is being determined; (xx) lottery and gambling winnings, prizes and regularly recurring gifts (except as provided in subparagraph [B] [v] of this subdivision); and (xxi) education grants (including fellowships or subsidies, to the extent taxable as income under the Internal Revenue Code).”
      Section 46b-215a-l (11) (B) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides: “The gross income exclusions are: (i) support received on behalf of a child who is living in the home of the parent whose income is being determined; (ii) SSI payments, including those received on behalf of a child who is living in the home of the parent whose income is being determined; (iii) federal, state and local public assistance grants; (iv) earned income tax credit; and (v) the income and regularly recurring contributions or gifts of a spouse or domestic partner.”

       In Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 244 Conn. 350, our Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether gifts from a spouse or domestic partner could be included when calculating gross incomes. At that time of the Unkelbach decision, the regulations did not include the exception in (v) for gifts from a spouse or domestic partner. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies (Rev. to 1994) § 46b-215a-l (11) (B) (v). In interpreting the regulations, our Supreme Court included gifts from third parties as gross income for purposes of child support because the regulations did not “indicate expressly that contributions or gifts from a subsequent spouse, domestic partner, or other third party, are intended to be excluded from gross income under the guidelines.” Unkelbach v. McNary, supra, 360.
      In 1999, in response to the Unkelbach decision, the regulations were amended expressly to exclude recurrent gifts from a spouse or domestic partner. See Marrocco v. Giardino, 255 Conn. 617, 637 n.20, 767 A.2d 720 (2001). Gifts from other third parties, however, have not been excluded. See Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 46b-215a-l (11) (B) (v). This history supports our rejection of the expansive reading of subparagraph (B) that the defendant asks us to adopt.

       The following examination of David Grunberg took place:
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Let me go back a step. How many companies do you own?
      “[The Witness]: I own several companies, four.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Okay. Can you list them?
      “[The Witness]: Yes. It’s Aircraft Book and News, LLC; Bookends, Inc, LLC; G & S Realty, Inc. . . .
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: And are you the sole owner of all three of those businesses?
      “[The Witness]: Yes.

        “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: At some point—and as you sit here now—your son has no ownership interest in those businesses?
      “[The Witness]: No.
      “[The Plaintiffs Counsel]: Okay. At some point, did he?
      “[The Witness]: Yes.”

       We note that the proper remedy in a situation where the record is ambiguous is a motion for articulation, which the defendant asked for in this case. Although the court ultimately abandoned its factual finding in its articulation; see part I; it was not clear error for the court to find in its oral decision that the defendant owned G & S Realty, especially considering the testimony of the defendant’s father.