into the parties’ separation agreement would be akin to creating a new agreement altogether. Further, the court based its decision on the fact that “no evidence was presented to indicate an inability [by the defendant] of an earning capacity of $70,000,” yet the defendant, on the basis of the separation agreement, had no reason to believe that he was required to present evidence of anything but a substantial change in his actual income. To require the defendant to establish his earning capacity rather than show a substantial change in circumstances would demand both a departure from the plain meaning of the separation agreement and the well established guidelines for modification set forth by our Supreme Court. See Borkowski v. Borkowski, 228 Conn. 729, 735-38, 638 A.2d 1060 (1994) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the court improperly denied
holding that former husband was not entitled to evidentiary hearing on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody