With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony
B: 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
C: holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances
D: holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party
D.