Id., 102 (court free to reject stipulation of parties for no alimony as unfair and inequitable and to award $1 per year alimony). A trial court may award alimony as part of the court's general equitable power. LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). "The equitable consideration in Sands was the state's interest in alimony where one party may apply for welfare assistance while the other has sufficient funds for support of both parties. . . . The powers of a court of equity, however, are obviously not limited to cases where there is a state interest."

"One who seeks equity must also do equity and expect that equity will be done for all." Lacroix v. Lacroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). Although the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should be equitably estopped from enforcing the original agreement requiring continuing compounding of interest, it is the defendant himself who is estopped from enforcing any waiver by the plaintiff.

Demar v. Open Space Conservation Commission, 211 Conn. 416, 425, 559 A.2d 1103 (1989). A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 687 n. 2, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). "It is axiomatic that once the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is raised, it must be immediately acted upon by the court."

On October 6, 1992, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint directed against Marktel and all counts except the count for fraud and misrepresentation, directed against Attorney Hertzmark. The defendants argue that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action because of plaintiffs failure to include these counts in their schedule of assets in their bankruptcy proceedings. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 87 n. 2, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983); Practice Book 145. "Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent." Demar v. Open Space Conservation Commission, 211 Conn. 416, 424, 559 A.2d 1103 (1989).

As we have stated many times, "[a]wards of support and alimony fall within the trial court's equitable powers and [t]he power to act equitably is the keystone to the court's ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of marriage. LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983); Robinson v. Robinson, 187 Conn. 70, 72, 444 A.2d 234 (1982)." (internal quotation marks omitted.)

"One who seeks equity must also do equity and expect that equity will be done for all." LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). See footnote 12. The trial court stated: "The court in trying to pierce through all the circumstances, feels it almost can be summed up in the lines of a famous movie: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The standard for reviewing the defendant's claim is whether the court abused its discretion in ordering a partition by sale. See LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689-90, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling.

The defendant, without the benefit of the file, had to proceed with the case based upon her own initiative in what was obviously a duplication of the previously rendered legal services. It was only after she notified the law firm of the settlement that the firm sent her the previously requested accounting along with a bill for $14,564.90. "The plaintiff seeks equity only for himself, but this he may not do. One who seeks equity must also do equity and expect that equity will be done for all." LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). Where, as here, there was neither delivery of the requested accounting nor the case file, thereby forcing a duplication of legal effort in order to dispose of the litigant's case, we are not inclined to say that equitable principles dictate that successor counsel pay prior counsel the reasonable value of their services.

"One who seeks equity must also do equity and expect that equity will be done for all." LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983). "Because a mortgage foreclosure action is an equitable proceeding, the trial court may consider all relevant circumstances to ensure that complete justice is done. City Savings Bank v. Lawler, 163 Conn. 149, 155, 302 A.2d 252 (1972); Hartford Federal Savings Loan Assn. v. Lenczyk, 153 Conn. 457, 463, 217 A.2d 694 (1966)."

Awards of support and alimony fall within the trial court's equitable powers and "`"[t]he power to act equitably is the keystone to the court's ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of marriage."'" LaCroix v. LaCroix, 189 Conn. 685, 689, 457 A.2d 1076 (1983); Robinson v. Robinson, 187 Conn. 70, 72, 444 A.2d 234 (1982). The plaintiff has not challenged the trial court's factual finding that an equitable redistribution of the financial resources of the parties would have been warranted, in accordance with the court's December order, but for the application of the contemplation doctrine.