Court Opinion

ID: 9943767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 13:02:04.87716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:20.016237
License: Public Domain

***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions
and petitions for certification is the “officially released”
date appearing in the opinion.

   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of
discrepancies between the advance release version of an
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to
be considered authoritative.

   The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the
opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and
bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not
be reproduced and distributed without the express written
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
   MARGARET MARSHALL v. JOHN MARSHALL II
                (AC 45727)
                     Alvord, Cradle and Westbrook, Js.

                                   Syllabus

The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court
    dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff and ordering the plaintiff to pay
    him certain alimony and child support. At the time of trial, the defendant
    had been unemployed for approximately five years. On the basis of the
    defendant’s past employment, the trial court found that he had an earning
    capacity of $350,000 per year. The plaintiff worked as an equity partner
    at M Co., an investment banking firm that she cofounded in 2012. As a
    partner of M Co., the plaintiff did not receive a base salary or a draw
    but, rather, received a percentage of the partnership’s yearly net profits
    in the form of distributions. Each year, the partners of M Co. determine
    the percentage of yearly net profits that each partner will receive. The
    plaintiff’s percentage of net profit had decreased each year from 2018
    through 2021, when the trial began. Her distributions also fluctuated
    from year to year, and she received a total of $1.3 million in 2020
    and $2.3 million in 2021. The distributions were received sporadically
    throughout the year, usually toward the end of the year or the beginning
    of the following year. The plaintiff received a Schedule K-1 (K-1) from
    M Co. every year, which she used to determine her net income. Prior
    to the commencement of the dissolution action, the plaintiff sent a text
    message to the defendant stating in relevant part that she was planning
    to reduce her participation in M Co. and was starting her ‘‘exit plan.’’
    According to the plaintiff’s testimony at trial, this text message was
    merely the result of her being frustrated and upset and she was not in
    an ‘‘exit process.’’ She also testified that she hoped that the text would
    persuade the defendant to begin seriously looking for employment.
    The defendant argued that there was a causal relationship between the
    plaintiff’s suggestion that she would reduce her income and the reduction
    in her percentage of M Co.’s net profits in 2020, alleging that the plaintiff
    intentionally reduced her income to decrease the amount of alimony
    and child support she would have to pay to him. In February, 2022, the
    plaintiff filed a financial affidavit that reflected her 2020 partnership
    income as shown on her K-1, with a total gross income of approximately
    $1 million. The plaintiff testified that she relied upon her 2020 K-1
    because she had not yet received the 2021 K-1 by the time of trial.
    Following the trial, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which
    it found that the plaintiff utilized income for her February, 2022 financial
    affidavit from 2020, a year during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic,
    and that the plaintiff had threatened to reduce her income and that her
    income was then reduced. The court indicated that it was unable to
    determine the plaintiff’s current income based solely on her distributions
    from 2021 and year to date for 2022 based on the evidence presented,
    and, therefore, the court utilized the plaintiff’s income from her Febru-
    ary, 2022 financial affidavit to determine alimony and child support
    amounts. Held:
1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused
    its discretion by basing its alimony and child support orders on the
    plaintiff’s 2020 income rather than her 2021 partnership distributions:
    contrary to the defendant’s argument that the trial court made a finding
    that the plaintiff intentionally had caused her income to be diminished
    in 2020, this court concluded that the trial court did not make such a
    finding, as, although the plaintiff’s percentage of M Co.’s profit in 2020
    was lower than in previous years, the court indicated that there were
    reasons for the reduction, including that additional partners had been
    added to M Co., that there had been a global pandemic, and that the
    plaintiff’s economic participation at M Co. had decreased; moreover,
    the trial court was well within its discretion to base its financial orders
    on the plaintiff’s 2020 income because it was unable to determine her
    current income based solely on her partnership distributions from 2021
    and year to date for 2022 and to find that the distributions that the
    plaintiff thus far had received from M Co. in 2022 did not reflect her
    actual net income because such distributions were separate from what
    ultimately was shown on her K-1 as income; furthermore, although the
    defendant was correct that there was ample evidence of the distributions
    that the plaintiff had received in 2021, the court was not required to
    accept his position that the distributions were equal to the plaintiff’s
    income, and the record supported a finding that the plaintiff could not
    accurately calculate her yearly income until she received a K-1, which
    reflected adjustments to the partnership distributions made by M Co.’s
    accountants, and, therefore, because adjustments were made to the
    total distributions that the plaintiff received from M Co., the amount of
    resources available for support purposes was not apparent from the
    partnership distributions alone.
2. The defendant could not prevail on his alternative claim that the trial
    court abused its discretion by basing the awards of alimony and child
    support on the plaintiff’s income as reflected on her financial affidavit
    rather than on her earning capacity: this court concluded that, because
    the trial court properly relied on the plaintiff’s February, 2022 financial
    affidavit in fashioning the support orders, the trial court properly exer-
    cised its discretion in declining to determine and rely on the plaintiff’s
    earning capacity; moreover, although the court determined an earning
    capacity for the defendant, it appeared that the court did so because
    the defendant had not been recently employed, and the court was not
    required to determine the plaintiff’s earning capacity given her continu-
    ous employment at M Co. since its creation in 2012 and income docu-
    mented by her K-1, on which the court could reasonably rely in crafting
    the support orders.
     Argued December 6, 2023—officially released February 27, 2024

                             Procedural History

   Action for the dissolution of a marriage, and for other
relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis-
trict of Stamford-Norwalk, where it was tried to the
court, M. Moore, J.; judgment dissolving the marriage
and granting certain other relief; thereafter, the court,
M. Moore, J., denied the defendant’s motions for clarifi-
cation and for reconsideration and reargument, and the
defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
  Campbell D. Barrett, with whom were Stacie L.
Provencher and, on the brief, Dana M. Hrelic, for the
appellant (defendant).
  James P. Sexton, with whom were Thomas D. Colin
and, on the brief, Gail Oakley Pratt and John R. Weik-
art, for the appellee (plaintiff).
                          Opinion

   WESTBROOK, J. In this marital dissolution action,
the defendant, John Marshall II, appeals from the judg-
ment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the
plaintiff, Margaret Marshall, challenging the factual and
legal bases for the court’s alimony and child support
orders. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court
improperly (1) relied on the plaintiff’s allegedly manipu-
lated 2020 income in fashioning the alimony and child
support orders, rather than relying on the plaintiff’s
2021 partnership distributions, and, alternatively, (2)
based those support orders on the plaintiff’s reported
income rather than on her earning capacity. We disagree
and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
   The following facts, which were either found by the
court or are otherwise undisputed, and procedural his-
tory are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The
plaintiff and the defendant were married on September
9, 2000. Three children were born of the marriage, two
of whom were minors at the time of the trial. The plain-
tiff filed for divorce on October 24, 2017.
   At the time of the trial, the plaintiff was forty-six
years old and worked as an equity partner at M2O, an
investment banking firm that she cofounded in 2012.
As a partner of M2O, the plaintiff does not receive a
base salary or a draw but, rather, receives a percentage
of the partnership’s yearly net profits in the form of
distributions.1 Each year, the partners of M2O meet to
determine the percentage of yearly net profits that each
partner will receive.2 Each partner then receives distri-
butions from M2O equal to his or her percentage of
the partnership’s net profits. The distributions are not
received on a set schedule but, rather, are received
sporadically throughout the year, usually toward the
end of the year or the beginning of the following year.3
The plaintiff’s percentage of net profit was 21 percent
in 2018, 15 percent in 2019, 12 percent in 2020, and 11
percent in 2021. She received distributions totaling $2.4
million in 2018, $1.2 million in 2019, $1.3 million in 2020,
and $2.3 million in 2021.
  The plaintiff receives a Schedule K-1 (K-1) from M2O
every year.4 The plaintiff refers to her annual K-1 to
determine her net income, which reflects the adjust-
ments to the partnership distributions made by M2O’s
accountants.5
   In February, 2022, near the end of the trial, the plain-
tiff filed a financial affidavit that reflected her 2020
partnership income as shown on her K-1. The plaintiff
relied on her 2020 K-1 because she had not yet received
the 2021 K-1 by the time of trial.6 The February, 2022
financial affidavit showed a gross weekly income of
$20,994 and a net weekly income of $12,183.
  At the time of trial, the defendant was fifty-three years
old and was unemployed. He was last employed in 2016
as a senior managing director at Focuspoint Private
Capital. Although the defendant testified that he was
unable to find employment due to a felony conviction
in 2013,7 he was let go from his job at Focuspoint Private
Capital in 2016 because of his poor job performance
rather than his conviction.8 The defendant has had sev-
eral years to seek employment following the com-
mencement of this action but has failed to do so. The
defendant has an earning capacity of $350,000 per year.
   Following a trial that began on February 17, 2021, and
which was primarily held remotely due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, the court, M. Moore, J., issued a thorough
memorandum of decision on June 13, 2022, dissolving
the parties’ marriage and issuing, inter alia, alimony
and child support orders.9 The court concluded that the
parties’ marriage had broken down irretrievably and
that the defendant was more at fault than the plaintiff
for the marital breakdown. The court found that ‘‘the
defendant’s failure to continue to make a financial con-
tribution to the family and his unilateral decision not
to find employment was the primary reason for the
breakdown of the marriage.’’
   The court ordered the plaintiff to pay alimony to the
defendant in the amount of $1500 per week ‘‘until the
first to occur of the following events: the death of either
party, the defendant’s remarriage or cohabitation pursu-
ant to statute and case law, or five years from the date
of dissolution.’’ The court did not order the defendant to
pay alimony to the plaintiff. In constructing this alimony
order, the court ‘‘reviewed the standard of living
enjoyed by the parties, including the standard of living
prior to the filing of the dissolution of marriage, the
standard of living after the filing of the dissolution of
marriage, and all of the factors incorporated in [General
Statutes] § 46b-82 and relevant case law.’’ The court’s
determination of the duration of the alimony award to
the defendant was based on ‘‘the court’s consideration
of all of the factors set forth in . . . § 46b-82 and its
determination that this period of time is reasonable to
allow the defendant to fulfill his responsibilities under
the parenting plan; provide the necessary income for
him to become financially independent and self-suffi-
cient in light of his age, educational background and
work history; and allow him to maintain a reasonable
standard of living that he enjoyed during the marriage
while finding full-time employment at a level he had
during the marriage.’’
   The court additionally ordered the parties to share
joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor
children.10 To determine the amount of child support
to be paid, the court reviewed General Statutes § 46b-
84; the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines (guide-
lines); relevant case law; the evidence at trial, including
the testimony of the parties; the guidelines’ worksheets
and financial affidavits submitted by the parties; and
the expenses of the children. The court determined that
the plaintiff’s net weekly income is significantly greater
than the guidelines’ maximum net income of $4000.11
After considering the proposed presumptive child sup-
port amount submitted by each party, the court con-
cluded that ‘‘the presumptive minimum weekly child
support to be paid from the plaintiff to the defendant
[was] $708 per week.’’ The court ultimately ordered the
plaintiff to pay the defendant $1500 per week in child
support. The court found this figure reasonable ‘‘in light
of the [principles] in the Connecticut child support
guidelines, the needs of the children, and § 46b-84.’’ The
court ordered the plaintiff to ‘‘pay child support for
each minor child until the child reaches the age of
eighteen or graduates high school, whichever occurs
later, but in no event past the child’s nineteenth birth-
day.’’
   On July 5, 2022, the defendant filed motions for clarifi-
cation and for reconsideration and reargument. In his
motion for clarification, the defendant sought clarifica-
tion regarding, inter alia, the current net incomes of
the parties12 and the amount of income that the court
attributed to the plaintiff at the time of dissolution.13
The plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant’s motion
for reconsideration and reargument on July 8, 2022,
arguing that the defendant ‘‘provides no basis whatso-
ever, legal or factual, to warrant reconsideration or
reargument on any of these subjects, and his requests
are very baldly seeking the proverbial second bite of
the apple.’’ The court denied the defendant’s motions
on July 26, 2022. This appeal followed. Additional facts
will be set forth as necessary.
   The defendant claims on appeal that the court abused
its discretion in determining alimony and child support
by relying on (1) the plaintiff’s February, 2022 financial
affidavit, which reflected her 2020 actual earned income
of $1.3 million, rather than relying on the evidence of the
approximately $2.3 million in distributions the plaintiff
received in 2021 as a partner of M2O; and (2) the plain-
tiff’s income rather than determining and relying upon
the plaintiff’s earning capacity. The defendant argues
that these alleged abuses of discretion, ‘‘separately and
together, implicate the mosaic of the court’s financial
orders and warrant reversal with direction to remand
for a new trial on the same.’’14 The plaintiff counters that
there was no abuse of discretion and that, therefore,
the judgment of the court should be affirmed. We agree
with the plaintiff.
   As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard
of review and other relevant legal principles. The ‘‘stan-
dard of review in family matters is well settled. An
appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders in
domestic relations cases unless the court has abused
its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably
conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. . . .
It is within the province of the trial court to find facts
and draw proper inferences from the evidence pre-
sented. . . . In determining whether a trial court has
abused its broad discretion in domestic relations mat-
ters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor
of the correctness of its action. . . . [T]o conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion, we must find that
the court either incorrectly applied the law or could not
reasonably conclude as it did. . . . 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 convic-
tion that a mistake has been committed. . . .
   ‘‘Further, [w]e have repeatedly recognized that [i]n
determining the assignment of . . . alimony under
§ 46b-82, a trial court must weigh the station or standard
of living of the parties in light of other statutory factors
such as the length of the marriage, employability, liabili-
ties and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity
of each for future acquisition of capital assets and
income. . . . Particularly with respect to alimony, the
trial court does not need to give each factor equal weight
or make express findings as to each factor, but it must
consider each factor. . . . In addition, it is a long set-
tled principle that the [party’s] ability to pay is a material
consideration in formulating financial awards. . . .
Finally, the trial court’s financial orders must be consis-
tent with the purpose of alimony: to provide continuing
support for the nonpaying spouse, who is entitled to
maintain the standard of living enjoyed during the mar-
riage as closely as possible. . . . When exercising its
broad, equitable, remedial powers in domestic relations
cases, a court must examine both the public policy
implicated and the basic elements of fairness.’’ (Cita-
tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tilsen
v. Benson, 347 Conn. 758, 796–97, 299 A.3d 1096 (2023).
  Section 46b-84 governs the award of child support
and provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) Upon or subsequent
to the . . . dissolution of any marriage . . . the par-
ents of a minor child of the marriage, shall maintain
the child according to their respective abilities, if the
child is in need of maintenance. Any postjudgment pro-
cedure afforded by chapter 906 shall be available to
secure the present and future financial interests of a
party in connection with a final order for the periodic
payment of child support. . . .
  ‘‘(d) In determining whether a child is in need of
maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of
the parents to provide such maintenance and the
amount thereof, the court shall consider the age, health,
station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and
sources of income, estate, vocational skills and employ-
ability of each of the parents, and the age, health, sta-
tion, occupation, educational status and expectation,
amount and sources of income, vocational skills,
employability, estate and needs of the child. . . .’’
   General Statutes § 46b-215a provides for a commis-
sion to oversee the establishment of child support
guidelines ‘‘to ensure the appropriateness of criteria for
the establishment of child support awards . . . .’’ In
support of the application of these guidelines, General
Statutes § 46b-215b (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘The
. . . guidelines issued pursuant to section 46b-215a
. . . shall be considered in all determinations of child
support award amounts . . . . In all such determina-
tions, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the
amount of such awards which resulted from the applica-
tion of such guidelines is the amount to be ordered. A
specific finding on the record at a hearing, or in a written
judgment, order or memorandum of decision of the
court, that the application of the guidelines would be
inequitable or inappropriate in a particular case . . .
shall be required in order to rebut the presumption in
such case.’’ See also Pencheva-Hasse v. Hasse, 221
Conn. App. 113, 123, 300 A.3d 1175 (2023).
   In Dowling v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390, 72 A.3d 1
(2013), our Supreme Court provided clear guidance for
determining child support obligations in cases of high
income families. The court explained that ‘‘the [child
support guideline] schedule sets forth a presumptive
percentage and resultant amount corresponding to spe-
cific levels of combined net weekly income; the sched-
ule begins at $50 and continues in progressively higher
$10 increments, terminating at $4000. . . . This court
has recognized that the guidelines nonetheless apply
to combined net weekly income in excess of that maxi-
mum amount. . . . Indeed, the regulations direct that,
[w]hen the parents’ combined net weekly income
exceeds [$4000], child support awards shall be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis, and the current support
prescribed at the [$4000] net weekly income level shall
be the minimum presumptive amount. . . .
   ‘‘While the regulations clearly demarcate the pre-
sumptive minimum amount of the award in high income
cases, they do not address the maximum permissible
amount that may be assigned under a proper exercise
of the court’s discretion. . . . [T]his court has
remained mindful that the guidelines . . . indicate that
such awards should follow the principle expressly
acknowledged in the preamble [to the guidelines] and
reflected in the schedule that the child support obliga-
tion as a percentage of the combined net weekly income
should decline as the income level rises.’’ (Citations
omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 400–401.
                             I
   The defendant first claims that the court abused its
discretion by relying on the plaintiff’s February, 2022
financial affidavit, which reflected the plaintiff’s 2020
partnership income as stated in her K-1, despite a wealth
of evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff received
more compensation in 2021. He argues that it was an
abuse of discretion to base the alimony and child sup-
port orders on the plaintiff’s 2020 income because the
plaintiff had intentionally reduced her income in order
to decrease the amount of alimony and child support
she would have to pay to the defendant. We conclude
that there was ample evidence in the record to support
the court’s decision, and, accordingly, the court did not
abuse its discretion in basing the support orders on the
plaintiff’s 2020 income rather than her 2021 distribu-
tions.
   The following additional facts are relevant to this
claim. In 2019, the plaintiff sent a text message to the
defendant stating in relevant part that ‘‘[t]he current
situation is unacceptable, it’s bad for my health, and
I’ve already told my partners I would like to begin reduc-
ing my economics at M2O this year. I am starting my
exit plan. . . .’’ This text message, according to the
plaintiff, was not sincere but, rather, was the result
of her being frustrated and upset.15 Additionally, the
plaintiff hoped that the text would persuade the defen-
dant to begin seriously looking for employment.16
According to the defendant, however, there was a
causal relationship between the plaintiff’s suggestion
that she would reduce her income and the reduction
in her percentage of M2O’s net profits in 2020. He stated
that the plaintiff intentionally reduced her income to
decrease the amount of alimony and child support she
would have to pay to him.17
   The court expressly stated that it had considered
all relevant statutory factors in crafting its award of
alimony and its award of child support.18 The court also
considered the distributions received by the plaintiff in
2021.19 In determining alimony and child support, ‘‘[t]he
court consider[ed] the following: [T]he plaintiff utilized
income for her [February] 2022 financial affidavit from
2020, a year during the height of the pandemic. The
plaintiff threatened to reduce her income, which is
exactly what happened. Moreover, her company has a
very informal manner of determining partner percent-
ages. The court, however, is unable to determine the
plaintiff’s current income based solely on her distribu-
tions from 2021 and year to date for 2022 based on the
evidence presented; therefore, the court utilizes the
plaintiff’s income from her [February] 2022 financial
affidavit.’’
  The parties disagree over whether the court found
that the plaintiff intentionally reduced her income in
2020. As we previously noted, in its memorandum of
decision the court stated that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff threatened
to reduce her income, which is exactly what happened.’’
The court additionally noted that the plaintiff ‘‘testified
she was not sincere when she threatened her husband
with a reduction of her income; however, it appears
the plaintiff’s income was in fact reduced during the
pendency of this divorce action.’’ The defendant argues
that ‘‘[t]he trial court . . . very clearly made three find-
ings that reflect deficiencies in the plaintiff’s income
number from 2020, including its finding that the plaintiff
threatened to reduce her income and that her income
was thereafter reduced. The trial court nevertheless
relied on the 2020 income number despite these glaring
deficiencies . . . .’’20 (Emphasis omitted).
   The plaintiff counters that ‘‘the trial court did not
make a finding that the plaintiff intentionally caused
her net income to be diminished. . . . Even read in
isolation . . . these sentences do not state that the
plaintiff intentionally reduced her income to make good
on her threat. . . . All that is clear from those two
sentences is that the plaintiff made a threat to reduce
her income and that the plaintiff’s income appeared
to have been reduced. The trial court does not state
explicitly that the plaintiff caused her income to drop,
intentionally or otherwise.’’ (Emphasis altered.) The
plaintiff additionally argues that the sentences should
not be read in isolation. In the same section of the
memorandum of decision, the court references addi-
tional events, such as the global pandemic and the addi-
tion of partners to M2O, that may have reduced her
income at the time in question. She therefore argues
that, ‘‘[w]hen the decision is read as a whole, the court
did not find that the plaintiff intentionally had reduced
. . . her income.’’ We agree with the plaintiff and con-
clude that the court did not find that the plaintiff had
intentionally reduced her 2020 income.
   The record reflects that the plaintiff’s percentage of
M2O’s profit in 2020 was lower than previous years.21
It, however, also indicates that there were reasons for
this reduction, including that additional partners had
been added to M2O, thereby reducing the percentage
of distributions received by each preexisting partner,22
that there had been a global pandemic,23 and that the
plaintiff’s ‘‘economic participation’’ at M2O has
decreased since 2019.24 Additionally, M2O has a pay-
ment structure in which its clients may pay M2O for
its services over time, rather than in a lump sum.25 As
a result, depending on the payment schedule permitted
by M2O and each of its clients, the distributions fluctu-
ate from year to year.26 The difference in distributions
received by the plaintiff in 2020 and 2021 is an example
of the variability in M2O’s payment structure. In 2020,
the plaintiff’s percentage of the partnership profits was
12 percent and she received approximately $1.3 million
in distributions from M2O. In 2021, the plaintiff received
approximately the same percentage, or 11 percent, but
she received about $2.3 million in distributions. The
evidence in the record therefore supports the assertion
that the plaintiff’s 2020 income was reflective of the
changes to the partners of M2O, the global pandemic,
and the plaintiff’s decreased economic participation at
M2O, as well as other variabilities of the partnership’s
payment structure.
   The court, additionally, was well within its discretion
in basing its financial orders on the plaintiff’s 2020
income because it was ‘‘unable to determine the plain-
tiff’s current income based solely on her distributions
from 2021 and year to date for 2022 based on the evi-
dence presented . . . .’’ The plaintiff had not yet
received her 2021 K-1 by the time of trial,27 and she
accordingly based her February, 2022 financial affidavit
on the last K-1 she had received, her 2020 K-1.28 The
distributions that the plaintiff thus far had received
from M2O in 2022 did not reflect her actual net income.29
The plaintiff testified that ‘‘distributions are completely
separate from what ultimately is shown on [her] K-1
for income’’ and that she ‘‘need[s] the K-1 and the tax
return in order to determine what [her] income is.’’
Although the defendant is correct that there is ample
evidence of the distributions the plaintiff received in
2021, the court was not required to accept his position
that the distributions are equal to the plaintiff’s income.
The record supports a finding that the plaintiff cannot
accurately calculate her yearly income until she
receives a K-1, which reflects adjustments to the part-
nership distributions made by M2O’s accountants.30 The
plaintiff’s February, 2022 financial affidavit states that
‘‘[e]arnings [are] based on [the plaintiff’s] 2020 M2O
income less qualifying business deductions and do NOT
reflect [the plaintiff’s] current cash flow. Early-year dis-
tributions are generally made only to pay estimated
taxes, and [the plaintiff] typically does not receive a
substantial portion of her total annual income until
the end of the year.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Because
adjustments are made to the total distributions that the
plaintiff receives from M2O, ‘‘the amount of resources
available for support purposes’’; (internal quotation
marks omitted) Onyilogwu v. Onyilogwu, 217 Conn.
App. 647, 654, 289 A.3d 1214 (2023); is not apparent
from the distributions alone.
   The court’s decision to base the support orders on
the plaintiff’s February, 2022 financial affidavit, which
reflected the plaintiff’s latest K-1 available at the time
of trial, was therefore reasonable in light of the evidence
before it. We accordingly conclude that the court
soundly exercised its discretion in determining the
financial orders based on the plaintiff’s 2020 income,
despite evidence of later distributions.31
                             II
  The defendant also claims, in the alternative, that the
court abused its discretion by not basing the awards
of alimony and child support on the plaintiff’s earning
capacity, rather than the plaintiff’s income as reflected
on her financial affidavit. Because we conclude that
the court properly relied on the plaintiff’s February,
2022 financial affidavit in fashioning the support orders,
we conclude that the court properly exercised its discre-
tion in declining to determine and rely on the plaintiff’s
earning capacity.
  ‘‘[I]t is well established that the trial court may under
appropriate circumstances in a marital dissolution pro-
ceeding base financial awards on the earning capacity
of the parties rather than on actual earned income. . . .
Earning capacity, in this context, is not an amount [that]
a person can realistically earn, nor is it confined to
actual income, but rather it is an amount [that] a person
can realistically be expected to earn considering such
things as his [or her] vocational skills, employability,
age and health.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Tilsen v. Benson, supra, 347 Conn. 799. While the court
may consider the earning capacity of each party, it is
not required to do so. See Ingles v. Ingles, 216 Conn.
App. 782, 798, 286 A.3d 908 (2022). ‘‘It is well settled
that [w]hether to base its financial orders on the parties’
actual net income or their earning capacities is left
to the sound discretion of the trial court.’’ (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id.
   The court in this case did not determine the plaintiff’s
earning capacity. It, however, was not required to do
so. See id. Although the court did determine an earning
capacity for the defendant, finding that he had an earn-
ing capacity of $350,000 gross yearly income, it appears
the court did so because the defendant had not been
recently employed.32 The plaintiff, comparatively, has
been continuously employed at M2O since its creation
in 2012 and, unlike the defendant, has income as docu-
mented by her K-1 on which the court could reasonably
rely in crafting the support orders. The court was there-
fore well within its discretion in choosing to rely on
the plaintiff’s February, 2022 financial affidavit in
determining the financial orders, rather than exercising
its discretion to instead calculate and rely upon her
earning capacity. Accordingly, we conclude that the
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to deter-
mine and rely on the plaintiff’s earning capacity to deter-
mine its financial orders.
      The judgment is affirmed.
      In this opinion the other judges concurred.
  1
     According to a partner of M2O, ‘‘[payments from clients] are collected
over time. We pay a lot of people during that period of time and then what’s
left over is net profit. And that net profit is then divided up based on our
percentages.’’
   2
     M2O ‘‘has a very informal manner of determining partner percentages.’’
‘‘Partner percentages’’ are each partner’s percent share in the distribution
of M2O’s net profit.
   At trial, one of the partners of M2O testified that to determine the percent-
age for each partner, the partners of M2O ‘‘get in a room . . . discuss the
projects . . . discuss the relative contribution[s] to those projects and
[then] try to figure out appropriate levels of compensation going into the
next year based on that. It’s a much more informal process than you might
think for a business that has done this level of revenue.’’ The division of
profits, according to a partner of M2O, is ‘‘largely based on performance.
We are a success based business. How we divide up the pot at the end of
a year going into the next year is largely based on contributions to the
success of the business.’’
   3
     At trial, the defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. And that—you get distributions from M2O on a quarterly basis
and also in between a quarterly basis, don’t you?
   ‘‘A. Not necessarily, it’s ad hoc.
   ‘‘Q. So, the quarterly ones that appear on your distribution schedule are
paid, and then there are other months where, according to the production
provided, shows that there’s, for instance, a payment in March as well as
April. So, there are times you get other payments in your distributions—at
distributions throughout the year, is that correct?
   ‘‘A. They’re all ad hoc.
   ‘‘Q. Okay. Well, each—each partner at M2O has a contract describing
when their payments would be made, isn’t that correct?
   ‘‘A. No.
   ‘‘Q. So, the contract—there’s no contract in terms of when you get paid?
   ‘‘A. Not that I’m aware of.
                                         ***
   ‘‘Q. Has there ever been a time since you started this business that you
haven’t gotten a distribution between August and January 1 of the follow-
ing year?
   ‘‘A. I have never received—I think I would typically be—I mean, I’m
generally receiving distributions in the second half of the year and oftentimes
one in January which relates to the following calendar—or the prior calen-
dar year.’’
   4
     ‘‘A schedule K-1 is the document that states each individual partner’s
proportionate income or loss based upon [his or her] percentage ownership.
The income or loss on the schedule K-1 is in turn reported on each partner’s
individual tax return.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grogan v. Penza,
194 Conn. App. 72, 75 n.2, 220 A.3d 147 (2019).
   5
     The defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. So, there is—the monies [distributions] that you receive are
counted as your income, correct? For which you have not had to pay them
pay for monies that you’ve over—been overpaid?
   ‘‘A. I—I think that my testimony was that the income is gonna be a subset
of the distributions.
   ‘‘Q. I don’t think you testified as to that, and I don’t understand what that
means. What do you mean a subset?
   ‘‘A. If you look at the K-1, there’s two—there—it shows what distributions
were made and then there’s also, like, an income part and then there’s
interest and there’s other things and there’s a whole bunch of deductions
and until I have all of that I can’t answer your question in terms of my income.
   ‘‘Q. So, you’re saying that the distributions are not income to you? What
you receive throughout the year—
   ‘‘A. Some—
   ‘‘Q. —and in 2021, you received $2.3 million. Are you saying that’s not
going to be your income for 2021?
   ‘‘A. That’s—that’s going to be some portion of my income. . . .
   ‘‘Q. And why would it be reduced 2.3? What—what portion is not going
to be counted as your income?
   ‘‘A. That’s where I don’t understand exactly what the—the accountants
do at Eisner and Ampner, but they make adjustments.’’
   6
     The defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff about the timing of the
K-1 as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. And have you received a K-1 for 2021?
   ‘‘A. No.
   ‘‘Q. And when do you typically get K-1s?
   ‘‘A. April.’’
   7
     The court found that, ‘‘[i]n 2013, the defendant plead[ed] guilty to assault
in the second degree with a motor vehicle. The defendant consumed alcohol
before driving head-on into another driver in 2010. He spent approximately
thirty days in jail in 2013 and was convicted of a felony.’’
   8
     The court found that the defendant ‘‘was let go because he refused to
work hard and meet the goals of his employment. The felony conviction
played no part in his termination from his employment at Focuspoint . . . .’’
   9
     The court additionally issued orders that are not at issue on appeal,
including orders regarding the division of the parties’ marital property,
insurance, educational support, and counsel fees.
   10
      The court, in relevant part, awarded the parties parenting time with the
two minor children on a week on/week off basis.
   11
      Connecticut’s child support guidelines; see Regs., Conn. State Agencies
§ 46b-215a-1 et seq.; contain a schedule of basic child support obligations,
‘‘which supplies presumptive levels of support on the basis of the parents’
combined net weekly income, but only up to $4000 of such income.’’ Dowling
v. Szymczak, 309 Conn. 390, 393, 72 A.3d 1 (2013).
   12
      The defendant argued that ‘‘the court did not make findings regarding
the current ‘net income’ of either party. . . . The defendant requests [that]
the court clarify the amount of its net income determinations for each of
the parties and the bases for those determinations.’’
   13
      The defendant argued that he ‘‘presented undisputed evidence with
respect to the plaintiff’s distributions in 2021 and year to date 2022. The
court stated in its [memorandum of decision] that the plaintiff received
partnership distributions from M2O in 2021 of $2.3 million . . . . However
. . . the court stated [that] it relied on the plaintiff’s 2020 income, which
was reflected in her financial affidavit dated February 25, 2022.’’ (Citation
omitted.)
   14
      ‘‘Financial orders in dissolution proceedings often have been described
as a mosaic, in which all the various financial components are carefully
interwoven with one another. . . . Because the court’s support orders, par-
ticularly its spousal support or alimony order, are informed by and reflective
of the parties’ incomes and assets, as affected by the court’s other financial
orders, the entirety of the mosaic must be refashioned whenever there is
error in the entering of any such interdependent order.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) Onyilogwu v. Onyilogwu, 217 Conn. App. 647, 657–58, 289
A.3d 1214 (2023).
   15
      The defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. So, you were planning to—so you were planning to exit—you were
starting your exit plan, meaning you were planning to leave your job so that
you would force [the defendant] to get a job, is that what your testimony is?
   ‘‘A. I’d say some of this I wasn’t at my best, perhaps, you know, in the
best frame of mind because I clearly was upset, throwing a lot in this text,
and I never had such a conversation with my partners, and I’m not in an
exit process.
                                        ***
   ‘‘Q. Did you ever indicate to [the defendant] that you were going to not
only leave your job but reduce your income?
   ‘‘A. I don’t remember that. If I said it, it was me being just upset.
   ‘‘Q. Do you recall saying you were going to renegotiate something with
M2O to get around the divorce process?
   ‘‘A. I don’t recall that specifically, but again, if I did, it was probably not
my best moment. I’m sure I was upset about something.’’
   16
      The defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. And—yes, and you said, when I asked you that previously, you said
that was a mistake, I was upset. What did—why did you say that was a
mistake? Were you trying to reduce your economics at M2O or not?
   ‘‘A. No, I guess it was, probably, you know, I was hoping that maybe he
would actually take seriously the fact that he—he needs to get a job.’’
   17
      The defendant’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. All right. And since the filing of the divorce, your percentage has
dropped each year, isn’t that true?
   ‘‘A. Yes, it has due to changes in the business.
   ‘‘Q. Okay. Was that a part of your divorce plan? To reduce your income?
   ‘‘A. No.
   ‘‘Q. Did you ever—did you ever put in writing that you were going to
make an effort to reduce [your] interest in M2O prior to a divorce action?
   ‘‘A. I remember sending [the defendant] some texts along those lines.
   ‘‘Q. Okay. And you said to him that you were going to reduce so you
didn’t have to pay him alimony?
   ‘‘A. That might not have been my finest hour. I don’t remember exactly
what I said, but there were some heated moments.
   ‘‘Q. Okay. So, you admit you have said that to him in the past?
   ‘‘A. I didn’t say—I don’t recall saying that exactly, but something like that
definitely could’ve been said.
   ‘‘Q. Okay. And do you also recall saying that you would want to renegotiate
a document to get around paying him alimony with M2O?
   ‘‘A. I—I don’t remember that, but again, there were a lot of heated debates
between us, so it’s possible.’’
   18
      With regard to alimony, the court stated in its memorandum of decision
that it had ‘‘reviewed the standard of living enjoyed by the parties, including
the standard of living prior to the filing of the dissolution of marriage, the
standard of living after the filing of the dissolution of marriage, and all of
the factors incorporated in § 46b-82 and relevant case law.’’
   With regard to child support, the court further stated: ‘‘The court has
reviewed the State of Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines
effective July 1, 2015, § 46b-84, relevant case law, the evidence at trial, the
testimony of the parties, and the guideline worksheets submitted by the
parties. The court has reviewed the financial affidavits submitted by the
plaintiff and the defendant and the expenses of the children. The plaintiff’s
net weekly income is significantly greater than the maximum guideline net
income of $4000. The plaintiff has submitted child support guidelines which
show a presumptive child support amount of $708 to be paid by the plaintiff
to the defendant. The defendant submitted child support guidelines attached
to his amended proposed orders which show weekly income to the defendant
of $1731 gross and $1546 net and the plaintiff’s net weekly income of $24,407.
The plaintiff lists the presumptive child support per week to be paid from
the plaintiff to the defendant in the amount of $2557. The court has also
considered the shared physical custody of the children.’’
   19
      The court stated in its memorandum of decision that ‘‘[t]he plaintiff
testified she utilized her 2020 income for the financial affidavit filed in
February, 2022. The plaintiff testified to partnership distributions in 2021
of $2.3 million. She also testified her percentage of income for 2021 and
2022 is 11 percent.’’
   20
      The defendant additionally refers to the plaintiff’s 2020 income as ‘‘inten-
tionally depleted . . . income,’’ ‘‘intentionally reduced income,’’ and ‘‘inten-
tionally manipulated income’’ throughout his appellate brief.
   21
      As a partner of M2O, the plaintiff receives a percentage of its profits
each year. ‘‘The plaintiff . . . testified her percentage of income for 2021
and 2022 is 11 percent. In 2016, her percentage of income was 27.9 percent
and in 2017 it was 27 percent. In 2018, her percentage dropped to 21 percent
because, the plaintiff testified, M2O added a partner. In 2019, the plaintiff’s
percentage was reduced to 15 percent and then to 12 percent in 2020.’’
   22
      The defendant’s attorney questioned Michael Custar, a partner of M2O,
as follows:
   ‘‘Q. And was the reason for [the percentage decline from 2020 to 2021]
because your secondary market, which you run, was affected by COVID?
   ‘‘A. No. I believe the principal reason was because we had a new partner
admitted. So, we were all diluted.’’
   23
      The court noted that the reduction in the plaintiff’s income occurred
at ‘‘the height of the pandemic.’’
   24
      The defendant’s attorney questioned Michael Custar, a partner of M2O,
as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. Is there a reason that a new partner has . . . [a] very similar
[profit] percentage to [the plaintiff] while the other partners’ percentages
are higher?
   ‘‘A. Yes, based on production.
                                       ***
   ‘‘Q. What aspect of her performance in the prior year caused her to be
at 11 percent profit percentage?
   ‘‘A. No origination that resulted in revenue I believe and a relatively
lower distribution percentage relative to other partners in terms of sales
percentage.’’
   25
      The defendant’s attorney questioned Luke Belcastro, a partner of M2O,
as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. And how and when are these fees paid?
   ‘‘A. They are paid upon—they are earned upon success.
   ‘‘Q. Okay.
   ‘‘A. We typically allow our clients to pay us over time and that time can
be anywhere [from] four quarters to ten quarters typically, probably six to
ten is more typical quarter. So, if you were to earn a dollar of revenue, we
would allow them to pay us over time.
   ‘‘Q. So, a year and a half to three years?
   ‘‘A. To two years, exactly, yeah.
   ‘‘Q. And but you are only paid once the funding mandate is completed,
once you secure the funds, right, then your part is done but they then have,
as you say, six to ten quarters to pay those fees?
   ‘‘A. As we have closings, we earn the fee. From that point on, they would
pay us on a schedule based on what was negotiated at the outset. So again,
if it’s eight quarters, on whatever date we had a closing where the manager
has collected the—has the committed dollars to their fund, we earn a fee.
And in the case quarters, we would get paid pro rata over the next eight
quarters for that fee.’’
   26
      The defendant’s attorney questioned Luke Belcastro, a partner of M2O,
as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. So, if you have a great year [of] accounts receivable, you might
only have a so-so year that same year with revenue because those receivables
will be paid out over, as you said, six to ten months? The receivables and
distributions might be different.
   ‘‘A. Right. Clients could also elect to pay us in a lump sum or they could
elect to pay us over time. So, the difference—you know, our distributions
can change and fluctuate based on what our clients chose to do, either
paying us as agreed in the schedule or deciding to pay us in—to prepay a
portion of that. It all depends on what our clients do.’’
   27
      See footnote 6 of this opinion.
   28
      The plaintiff has consistently based the partnership income reported
on her financial affidavits on her K-1 from two years prior. When she filed
her March, 2021 financial affidavit, she used her 2019 K-1 because she had
not received her 2020 K-1 from M2O by the date of filing.
   29
      The plaintiff’s attorney questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Can you explain the difference [between income and distributions]?
   ‘‘A. The distributions are completely separate from what ultimately is
shown on my K-1 for income. I mean, certainly there’s some portion of
those distributions [that] wind up being income, but I can’t know, until the
audit is complete, and the taxes are ready to be filed, what the income is.
   ‘‘Q. And that hasn’t happened yet for calendar year [2021]?
   ‘‘A. That hasn’t happened yet for [2021].’’
   The defendant’s attorney also questioned the plaintiff as follows:
   ‘‘Q. Okay. So, in spite of the fact that you have received distributions this
year in 2021, and we are in August, you did not include the income that
you have received in 2021, but you relied on 2020 income for this [August,
2021] financial affidavit?
   ‘‘A. Distributions don’t necessarily equal income so until I have my K-1
for 2021, I—I cannot give you an exact figure for what that is.’’
   30
      See footnote 4 of this opinion.
   31
      The defendant is not precluded from filing a motion for modification
of the support orders in the event of a substantial change to the plaintiff’s
income. Pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-86, ‘‘[u]nless and to the extent
the decree precludes modification, any final order for the periodic payment
of permanent alimony or support . . . may, at any time thereafter, be contin-
ued, set aside, altered or modified by the court upon a showing of a substan-
tial change in the circumstances of either party . . . .’’ But see McKeon v.
Lennon, 321 Conn. 323, 334–35, 138 A.3d 242 (2016) (increase in supporting
spouse’s income alone ordinarily will not justify modification of alimony
award but ‘‘the trial court may consider a substantial increase in the support-
ing spouse’s income, standing alone, as sufficient justification for granting
a motion to modify a child support order . . . .’’).
   32
      The defendant was last employed as a senior managing director at
Focuspoint Private Capital in 2016, five years prior to the start of trial.