"The plaintiff, as appellant, has the responsibility to provide this court with an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 681, 458 A.2d 362 (1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 32 Conn. App. 317, 319, 629 A.2d 1137, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 902, 634 A.2d 295 (1993); Connecticut Bank Trust Co., N.A. v. Linsky, 32 Conn. App. 13, 15, 627 A.2d 954 (1993); Augeri v. Planning Zoning Commission, 24 Conn. App. 172, 178, 586 A.2d 635, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 904, 588 A.2d 1381 (1991)." deFur v. deFur, 37 Conn. App. 450, 451-52, 656 A.2d 703 (1995). The plaintiff did not file a notice pursuant to Practice Book § 4059(b) or a motion for articulation of this ruling pursuant to Practice Book § 4051.

It is the appellant's burden to furnish an adequate record. Practice Book § 4061;deFur v. deFur, 37 Conn. App. 450, 451-52, 656 A.2d 703 (1995); Gallant v. Esposito, 36 Conn. App. 794, 797, 654 A.2d 380 (1995). "`If the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred, [this court] will not attempt to supplement or reconstruct the record, or to make factual determinations in order to decide the defendant's claim."

Therefore the court takes no action on claims for reimbursement. See, e.g., deFur v. deFur, 37 Conn.App. 450, 452, 656 A.2d 703 (1995) (court cannot make order without specific factual finding); Mensah v. Mensah, 145 Conn.App. 644, 653, 75 A.3d 92 (2013) (documentary evidence probative, and generally necessary, for financial claims); Alexander v. Vernon, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. X07-CV-02-0078935-S, (May 3, 2004, Sferrazza, J.) (dispute cannot be resolved if remains in the " shadows of speculation."). On the subject of the defendant's home, the matter is a little more complicated.

Although the court, having experience in other similar cases, finds the plaintiff's testimony to be reasonable, without any evidence beyond her testimony, there is no valid order that the court can make under these circumstances. See, e.g., deFur v. deFur, 37 Conn.App. 450, 452, 656 A.2d 703 (1995) (court cannot make order without specific factual finding); Alexander v. Vernon, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. X07-CV-02-0078935-S, (May 3, 2004, Sferrazza, J.) (dispute cannot be resolved if remains in the " shadows of speculation."). The court will accept the defendant's proposed order regarding this issue and leave future proof to the plaintiff to obtain so that she might enforce such an order.