Annotations to former section 46-52: Cited. 171 Conn. 23; Id., 219; Id., 278. Established judicial standards of review of awards of alimony developed under Sec. 46-21 apply to review of awards made under this section; trial court is guided in exercise of discretion by listing in this section of factors to be considered in awarding alimony. Id., 313. Cited. 172 C. 192. Wife’s earning potential is important factor to be considered in awarding alimony. Id., 202. Cited. Id., 269; Id., 316; Id., 361; 173 Conn. 397; 174 Conn. 1; Id., 279; Id., 602; 176 Conn. 222; 178 C. 377. Discussion of ante nuptial agreements relating to property rights upon dissolution of the marriage. 181 Conn. 482. Cited. 183 Conn. 433. Alimony. 33 Conn.Supp. 44. Annotations to present section: Cited. 177 Conn. 465; 178 Conn. 308; 179 Conn. 174; Id., 568; Id., 622. Alimony award based on demonstrated earning capacity is appropriate especially where defendant has wilfully depleted his earnings. 180 Conn. 184. The same criteria which determine initial alimony award are relevant to the question of modification. Id., 218. Cited. Id., 376. There is no absolute right to alimony. Id., 528. Court is not required to give equal weight to each of the specified items it considers in determining an award. Id., 530. Cited. Id., 705; 181 C. 145; 182 C. 19; 183 Conn. 35; Id., 96; Id., 253; Id., 512; 184 Conn. 36; Id., 406; Id., 513; 185 C. 7; Id., 42; Id., 141; Id., 156; Id., 275; Id., 491; Id., 573; 186 Conn. 167; Id., 191; Id., 311; Id., 709; Id., 773; 187 C. 249; 188 Conn. 98; Id., 232; Id., 354; Id., 385; Id., 736; 189 Conn. 129. Award of alimony under statute is not contingent upon a specific request. Id., 685. Cited. 190 C. 26; Id., 36; Id., 126; Id., 173; Id., 269; Id., 491; Id., 657; 191 Conn. 46; Id., 81; 193 Conn. 261; 194 Conn. 25; Id., 312; 197 Conn. 1. Contingent order could not be sustained as an award of alimony under this statute or as assignment of property under Sec. 46b-81; judgment of Appellate Court reversed. 204 Conn. 224. Cited. 207 Conn. 217; 210 Conn. 170; 211 Conn. 485; 213 Conn. 686; 214 Conn. 713; 216 Conn. 673; 218 Conn. 801; 220 Conn. 372; 221 Conn. 698; 222 Conn. 32; 225 Conn. 185; 228 Conn. 85; Id., 729; 231 Conn. 168; 234 Conn. 783. Judgment of Appellate Court in 34 CA 785 reversed with respect to its affirming decision of trial court that trust constitutes an asset of defendant for purpose of determining alimony. 235 Conn. 45. Doctrine of res judicata does not require all issues between spouses to be litigated in the dissolution proceeding. 236 Conn. 582. Cited. 240 C. 35. Court need not make explicit references to statutory criteria it considered in its decision resolving property and alimony disputes in dissolution of marriage action; judgment of Appellate Court in 40 Conn.App. 178 reversed. Id., 79. Standard for rehabilitative alimony discussed. 245 C. 506. Dual alimony orders are permitted and are not required to contain identical terms or conditions; as part of a nonexhaustive list, “needs of each of the parties” includes a party’s need to travel in order to visit the party’s children. 249 C. 265. Payments made regularly and consistently to a former spouse are to be considered by trial court in setting financial orders; there is no legal distinction between how to treat income between former spouse who pays support and former spouse who receives support. 262 C. 360. Capital gains not income for purposes of modification of alimony if gains are not a steady stream of income, but changes in value may be taken into consideration in considering a modification. 266 C. 641. Change in value of an asset awarded at time of dissolution may be considered when modifying an alimony award; failure to consider amount and sources of plaintiff’s income and needs constitutes an abuse of discretion under statute. 283 C. 494. When a court has based a financial award on a party’s earning capacity, the court must determine the specific dollar amount of the party’s earning capacity. 309 C. 105. Trial court’s mention of two factors in Sec. 46b-81 does not render lump sum award an improper property distribution. 323 C. 144. Cited. 1 Conn.App. 158; Id., 172; Id., 400; Id., 604; Id., 686; 2 CA 14; Id., 141; Id., 179; Id., 416; Id., 425; Id., 472. Criteria to be considered for alimony awards do not include impracticability of the collection of alimony. Id., 590. Cited. 3 Conn.App. 25; Id., 679; 4 CA 489; Id., 575; Id., 611; 5 CA 67; Id., 95; Id., 185; Id., 484; 6 CA 471; Id., 632; 7 Conn.App. 41; 8 Conn.App. 50; Id., 76; 9 CA 432; Id., 486; Id., 498; 10 CA 466; Id., 570. Language of this section and Sec. 46b-62 does not provide for consideration of status of legal services rendered, whether private or nonprofit, in awarding attorney’s fees. 11 Conn.App. 150. Cited. Id., 195; Id., 268; Id., 463; Id., 610; Id., 653; 12 Conn.App. 525; Id., 596; Id., 626; 13 CA 129; Id., 185; Id., 270; Id., 300; Id., 512; Id., 651; 14 Conn.App. 541; 15 Conn.App. 292; Id., 318; 16 Conn.App. 193; Id., 412; Id., 680; 17 Conn.App. 480; 18 Conn.App. 166; Id., 622; 19 Conn.App. 146; 20 CA 500; Id., 551; Id., 609; 21 Conn.App. 200; 22 Conn.App. 136; Id., 248; Id., 337; Id., 392; 23 Conn.App. 98; Id., 111; Id., 330; 24 CA 307; Id., 343; Id., 509; 25 Conn.App. 41; Id., 555; Id., 595; 26 Conn.App. 386; Id., 527; Id., 720; Id., 737; 27 Conn.App. 364; Id., 396; 28 Conn.App. 208; Id., 483; Id., 854; judgment reversed, see 228 Conn. 85; 30 Conn.App. 292; Id., 443; Id., 560; 31 Conn.App. 561; Id., 582; Id., 736; 32 Conn.App. 152; Id., 537; Id., 733; 33 CA 536; 34 Conn.App. 328; Id., 462; judgment reversed, see 232 Conn. 750; Id., 641; Id., 785; judgment reversed, see 235 Conn. 45; 35 CA 228; Id., 246; 36 Conn.App. 305; 39 Conn.App. 162; 40 Conn.App. 178; judgment reversed, see 240 Conn. 79; 41 Conn.App. 716; 43 CA 508; 44 Conn.App. 605; 46 Conn.App. 87. Life insurance is not a necessary form of security to assure payment of periodic alimony. 51 CA 530. Court order limiting duration of alimony payments to 10 years held not improper. 54 Conn.App. 304. Trial court may exercise broad discretion in awarding alimony. 57 Conn.App. 165. Plaintiff cannot succeed in claim that he is entitled to immediate appellate review of denial of his motion to dismiss on the proposition that section deprives any trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over a request for postjudgment alimony absent finding of a substantial change in circumstances where plaintiff’s argument of lack of statutory jurisdiction does not support claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and appeal does not pass the State v. Curcio test. 61 CA 112. If party asserts health an issue in claim for alimony and is receiving Social Security disability benefits, such assertion can be refuted by introduction of evidence relevant to health. 66 CA 16. Court unable to discern whether contributions from parents were gifts or loans regarding motion to modify alimony and child support awards. 69 CA 251. Court not required to reference expressly the statutory criteria it considered in awarding alimony. Id., 472. Capital gains generated by an asset distributed in dissolution decree do not fall within purview of section; if an asset is property acquired by plaintiff after the dissolution, and, therefore, not distributed as part of the property assignment, then it is income that must be considered by court in an alimony modification; capital gains tax realized on sale of asset acquired after dissolution may be considered by court in determining whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances; appreciation of an asset that was distributed at time of dissolution does not constitute a change in circumstances that court may consider when deciding whether to entertain a motion for modification of alimony. 70 CA 772. In considering “amount and sources of income”, court cannot ignore fact that defendant receives a substantial year-end bonus simply because it is not received until the following year; provision does not require court to structure payment of alimony and child support to accommodate payor’s compensation schedule. 71 CA 614. Duration of alimony in context of length of the marriage was not a properly considered “equitable factor”. 79 CA 488. Financial orders cannot be logically inconsistent with factual findings. 82 CA 378. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined plaintiff lacked funds to defend appeal and ordered defendant to pay a set fee to plaintiff’s attorney. 83 Conn.App. 478. Court statements re consideration of criteria for alimony means it considered and decided issue of alimony even though there was no express finding on alimony. 85 CA 772. Court must consider all statutory criteria but is free to accord whatever weight it determines appropriate to each statutory factor. 86 Conn.App. 665. Trial court properly considered defendant’s cohabitation in relation to her financial situation in analyzing statutory factors and determining whether modification of alimony was warranted. 88 CA 674. Defendant’s argument that court ignored several factors is unavailing since court is not required to make explicit reference to the statutory criteria that it considered in making its decision or to make express findings as to each statutory factor. 107 Conn.App. 488. Court abused its discretion by failing to award time limited or rehabilitative alimony to plaintiff who was found to be responsible for certain debts but could be in dire financial straits due to her inability to increase her earning capacity, receive alimony or receive a portion of the marital property. 125 CA 265. Real property may serve as security for the court’s alimony award under section despite language in the prenuptial agreement prohibiting the transfer of interest in premarital net worth that includes such real property. 136 CA 773. Cited. 41 Conn.Supp. 115. Subsec. (a): Appellate Court’s conclusion that trial court improperly relied on total length of parties’ relationship in crafting its financial orders was supported by record; under Sec. 46b-81(c) and this Subsec., a court shall consider length of parties’ marriage, which does not include prior marriages or cohabitation preceding marriage. 280 Conn. 632. Prior marriage and cohabitation between parties before their remarriage to each other are not to be included when calculating “length of the marriage” in remarriage divorce proceedings. 93 Conn.App. 618. Defendant’s annual bonus constituted an “amount and source of income” that court should have considered when determining division of marital property and awarding alimony and child support, and matter should be remanded for recalculation of all awards even though child support award was calculated correctly. 98 Conn.App. 706. Court must consider all statutory criteria but there is no additional requirement that court specifically state how it weighed statutory criteria or explain in detail the importance assigned to each statutory factor. 99 Conn.App. 326.

See Sec. 17b-743 re direction that payments under support order be made to Commissioner of Administrative Services or local welfare department. See Sec. 17b-744 re discontinuance of support payments to Commissioner of Administrative Services.