ARTHUR H. HEALEY, J.

On February 4, 1986, the parties' marriage was dissolved by a judgment that incorporated the provisions of a twenty-one page separation agreement (agreement) of the parties, also dated February 4, 1986. On December 1, 1988, the defendant husband filed a motion for interpretation or clarification of that agreement maintaining that the parties were unable to agree upon the interpretation of Article III of that agreement. That article is captioned "Alimony and Support and Education." The trial court, Nigro, J., held a hearing on this motion. The defendant has appealed from the trial court's interpretation of Article III. Pursuant to Practice Book 4023, we transferred the case to this court.

Initially, it is useful to set out certain background gleaned from the record. At the time of the dissolution, the parties had two children: Amy, born July 25, 1967, and Brett, born April 2, 1971. At that time, Amy was in her freshman year at Tufts university and Brett was attending a private secondary school. At the time of the hearing on the defendant's motion on January 23, 1989, Amy was a senior at Tufts university and she planned to go to law school in the fall of 1989. At that time, Brett was a senior at the Loomis-Chaffee School in Windsor and was going to college in the fall of 1989. The plaintiff wife had remarried on June 20, 1987, approximately one year and four months after the date of the dissolution.

The agreement encompasses eighteen "Articles," some of which are divided into numbered paragraphs. Article III, upon which the parties have focused, is divided into ten numbered paragraphs, some of which, in turn, are further subdivided into subparagraphs. As will be seen below, the defendant's obligations concerning the education and support of the Barnard children, that are at issue here, varied depending upon whether he was paying alimony. Paragraphs 3.4 through 3.8 set out those obligations when he was paying alimony Paragraph 3.10, however, concerned the defendant's obligations to pay for such education and support in the event his obligation to pay alimony terminated for any reason, except his death, within five years of the date of the dissolution decree.

Paragraph 3.4 of Article III provides that the plaintiff must pay the "total cost of the private preparatory school education" of her son, Brett, as "total cost" was defined in that paragraph. It also provides that so long as the defendant was paying alimony to the plaintiff', she acknowledged that she would be paying the entire support obligation for Brett. Paragraph 3.5 provides, inter alia, that the defendant was "to continue to pay the total cost of the private college education of Amy [his daughter] at Tufts University through her freshman year, and the total cost of her college education, not to exceed such total cost at the University of Connecticut, during her sophomore, junior and senior years. Said obligation shall continue until Amy receives her degree from college but in no event beyond June 30, 1990.*. . ." The asterisk refers to a footnote to paragraph 3.5 and that footnote has been the subject of conflicting interpretations by the parties. This footnote provides: "In the event the wife is remarried and there are two children in college at the same time, the husband agrees that he will contribute to the educational expense at a total cost for each child not to exceed such total cost at the University of Connecticut."

Paragraph 3.6 provides that the "Husband shall pay the total cost of the college education of Brett not to exceed such total cost at the University of Connecticut during his junior and senior years. Said obligation shall continue until Brett receives his degree from college but in no event beyond June 30, 1994. Paragraph 3.7 provides that the "Husband further agrees to pay for the post graduate education of said children in accordance with his financial abilities to do so at the time of their election to obtain such education. In no event shall such obligation extend beyond three (3) years after their graduation from an undergraduate school."

Paragraph 3.8 provides: "The Husband's obligation to provide education to his children as limited above is predicated upon his present disposable income. In the event that the same shall increase substantially because of the remarriage of the Wife or in a manner unforeseen at the time of entering this agreement, then in that event the obligation of the parties to pay for expenses of education as set forth in paragraphs 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 shall be reviewed to be brought into line with the Husband's ability to pay."

Paragraph 3.9, which concerns redress to the Superior Court, provides: "In the event that the parties cannot agree upon the Husband's obligation or abilities under this Article III, either party may petition the Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, for a determination of the same, and this agreement shall be deemed to have been amended in accordance with and to the extent of any finding and order of said Court."

Paragraph 3.10, which is the final paragraph set out under Article III, is, in turn, further subdivided into six subparagraphs. Its introductory paragraph states the following: "In the event that the Husband's obligation to pay alimony to the Wife shall terminate for any reason except for his death, within five (5) years from the date of the entry of [this] decree, the Husband's obligation to provide education for his children shall be amended as follows

The trial court, in its memorandum, pointed out that the defendant had specifically asked it to determine the extent to which the agreement had fixed his obligation to pay for the post secondary school education of Amy and Brett. The trial court noted that the footnote to paragraph 3.5 and its effect was at the center of the parties' dispute and particularly the meaning of the term "college" in that footnote. It interpreted the term "college" in the footnote to paragraph 3.5 to mean "four years of undergraduate study," the "standard four-year undergraduate course" and not postgraduate school. In so doing, the trial court rejected the defendant's claim that "college" included "any education after secondary school" including "law school or any other post-undergraduate college education." It supported that conclusion by pointing to other paragraphs of Article III which used such terms as "post graduate education" as in paragraph 3.7. The court referred to paragraph 3.5, determining that the college education in this paragraph involving Amy clearly was intended to mean four years of undergraduate study, to paragraph 3.10 which the trial court said "carefully distinguish[es]" between "private 'college' education" and "post graduate education" and to paragraph 3.6 where it maintained that "college" education, as applied to Brett, could only be read as meaning the four undergraduate years ending with the senior year.

In agreeing with the plaintiff that "college" in the footnote to paragraph 3.5 meant "college" in the four year undergraduate sense, it also accepted her claim that the defendant's obligations, by virtue of her remarriage, were fixed by paragraph 3.10. In reaching this latter conclusion, it rejected the defendant's claim that paragraph 3.10 must be interpreted to incorporate the footnote to paragraph 3.5, including specifically his claim as to the interpretation of "college" in that footnote to mean any education after secondary education including postgraduate education or law school. The trial court noted that under paragraph 3.10, the defendant assumed "a significantly larger role in meeting the educational costs of his children" should his alimony obligation terminate, as it did. It also determined that paragraph 3.10 did not condition the defendant's obligation upon his ability to pay. It further decided that paragraph 3.9 did not authorize it to modify, in accordance with the defendant's ability to pay, as he contended, his obligations set forth in paragraph 3.10.

In his appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in concluding that his obligation to pay for the post majority education of his children was not subject to modification and, therefore, further erred in refusing to consider his financial ability to pay for the post-majority education of the Barnard children.

The defendant claims that his financial ability to pay for the post majority education of the Barnard children is a criterion that pervades Article III of the agreement and for that he refers to paragraphs 3.5 through 3.8 of that article. He contends that upon the plaintiff's remarriage, his obligations to pay for the education and support of the Barnard children are not controlled by paragraph 3.10 but are limited as set out in the footnote to paragraph 3.5. In addition, he argues that paragraph 3.9 explicitly contemplates and allows recourse to the Superior Court "[i]n the event . . . the parties cannot agree upon [his] obligation or abilities under . . . Article III. . . . ." He maintains, nevertheless, that the trial court ignored paragraph 3.9 when it concluded that paragraph 3.10 did not condition his obligation thereunder upon his ability to pay. Thus, he argues, the trial court gave no effect to paragraph 3.9 and rendered it a nullity. By failing to give the required consideration and effect to paragraph 3.9, he contends that the trial court erred in not considering the agreement as a whole and not giving efficacy to each part where appropriate.

In addition, the defendant also claims that the trial court erred in concluding that his obligation to pay for post majority education of the Barnard children was not subject to modification. He contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to modify payment of educational expenses after a child attains the age of eighteen where the dissolution judgment incorporates an agreement to that effect. The defendant points out that paragraph 3.10 contains varying time intervals at which his obligation under paragraph 3.10 was "triggered," i.e., depending upon whether his obligation to pay alimony terminated. He reasons that, because that obligation could have been triggered "within two (2) years" of the judgment incorporating this agreement, as it was on the plaintiff's remarriage when Brett had not yet attained the age of seventeen, the parties could not have intended that the defendant's financial obligation to Brett should have been nonmodifiable when Brett had not reached his majority. The defendant, therefore, maintains that because paragraph 3.10 contains premajority, as well as post majority, financial undertakings by him, it would be "ludicrous" to think that the parties and the court that entered the dissolution judgment "silently" intended Article III to be modifiable before the children were eighteen and nonmodifiable thereafter. (Emphasis added.) This, he concludes, is what the trial court did "despite any language [suggesting] such a construction." He urges, therefore, that we set aside the orders of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings.

In the present case, the agreement of the parties was ordered incorporated by reference into the dissolution decree. A judgment rendered in accordance with such a stipulation of the parties is to be regarded and construed as a contract. See Kenworthy v. Kenworthy, 180 Conn. 129, 131, 429 A.2d 837 (1980); Albrecht v. Albrecht, 19 Conn. App. 146, 152, 562 A.2d 528, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 813, 565 A.2d 534 (1989). The construction of such an agreement by the trial court is subject to our review under the clearly erroneous standard. Albrecht v. Albrecht, supra; see Lavigne v. Lavigne, 3 Conn. App. 423, 427, 488 A.2d 1290 (1985).

"A contract is to be construed as a whole and all relevant provisions will be considered together." Lar-Rob Bus Corporation v. Fairfield, 170 Conn. 397, 407, 365 A.2d 1086 (1976); see Blatt v. Star Paper Co., 160 Conn. 193, 200, 276 A.2d 786 (1970); 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts 258. In giving meaning to the terms of a contract, we have said that 'a contract must be construed to effectuate the intent of the contracting parties.'" Sturman v. Socha, 191 Conn. 1, 10, 463 A.2d 527 (1983); Leonard Concrete Pipe Co. v. C. W. Blakeslee Sons, Inc., 178 Conn. 594, 598, 424 A.2d 277 (1979); Ginsberg v. Mascia, 149 Conn. 502, 506, 182 A.2d 4 (1962). In ascertaining intent, "we consider not only the language used in the contract but also the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, the motives of the parties and the purposes which they sought to accomplish." Connecticut Co. v. Division 425, 147 Conn. 608, 616, 164 A.2d 413 (1960); Marcus v. Marcus, 175 Conn. 138, 141, 394 A.2d 727 (1978). "The intention of the parties to a contract is to be determined from the language used interpreted in the light of the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction. The question is not what intention existed in the minds of the parties but what intention is expressed in the language used." Ives v. Willimantic, 121 Conn. 408, 411, 185 A. 427 (1936); Leonard Concrete Pipe Co. v. C. W. Blakeslee Sons, Inc., supra; Powel v. Burke, 178 Conn. 384, 387, 423 A.2d 97 (1979). This is so where the parties have their agreement in writing. Sturman v. Socha, supra; Robert Lawrence Associates, Inc. v. DelVecchio, 178 Conn. 1, 14, 420 A.2d 1142 (1979). "In interpreting contract items, we have repeatedly stated that the intent of the parties is to be ascertained by a fair and reasonable construction of the written words and that the language used must be accorded its common, natural, and ordinary meaning and usage where it can be sensibly applied to the subject matter of the contract." Sturman v. Socha, supra, 10; Marcus v. Marcus, supra, 141-42; Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, 146 Conn. 644, 647-48, 153 A.2d 828 (1959). Where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given effect according to its terms. 'A court will not torture words to import ambiguity where the ordinary meaning leaves no room for ambiguity and words do not become ambiguous simply because lawyers or laymen contend for different meanings. Downs v. National Casualty Co., 146 Conn. 490, 494, 152 A.2d 316.' Collins v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 164 Conn. 369, 374, 321 A.2d 444 (1973); see Reese v. First Connecticut Small Business Investment Co., 182 Conn. 326, 327, 438 A.2d 99 (1980). With these principles in mind, we turn to the trial court's resolution of the meaning of "college" in the footnote to paragraph 3.5 of Article III of the agreement. We find no error in the trial court's ruling on that issue.

At the outset, we note that paragraph 3.5, to which the footnote is appended, contains the term "college." Further, we note that paragraph 3.5 itself provides that the defendant "shall continue to pay the total cost of the private college education of Amy . . . at Tufts . . . through her freshman year, and the total cost of her college education . . . at the University of Connecticut during her sophomore, junior and senior years. Said obligation shall continue until Amy receives her degree from college but in no event beyond June 30, 1990.*" (Emphasis added.) The references to "college" in paragraph 3.5 are clearly to a standard four year college education. In addition, paragraph 3.6 provides that "the Husband shall pay the total cost of the college education of Brett . . . not to exceed such total cost at the University of Connecticut during his junior and senior years. Said obligation shall continue until Brett receives his degree from college but in no event beyond June 30, 1994 . . . ." (Emphasis added.) In this context, the terms "college" and "college education" in paragraph 3.6 again clearly apply to a standard four year college education. That the word "college" means just that finds further support in paragraph 3.7 which provides that "[t]he Husband further agrees to pay for the post graduate education of said children in accordance with his financial abilities to do so at the time of their election to obtain such education. In no event shall such obligation continue beyond three (3) years after their graduation from an undergraduate school." (Emphasis added.) This "further" undertaking speaks not to "college," as that term is commonly understood, but, to use the words of the parties themselves, to "post graduate education," that which comes "after their graduation from an undergraduate school."

The last paragraph of Article III is 3.10 and it is particularly significant on the intent of the parties as to the meaning of "college" in the footnote to paragraph 3.5 in the context of the defendant's claim that his obligation to his children, in the event of the remarriage of the plaintiff', is not controlled by paragraph 3.10 but is limited as set out in this footnote. This paragraph expresses the extent and nature of the defendant's obligations in the event that his obligation to pay alimony terminates for any reason, except his death, within five years from the date of the entry of the dissolution decree. In doing so, it sets out in detail, with reference to each child, what is to occur in the event the defendant's obligation ceases within two years, within three years or within four years. In doing so, it refers, as to Brett, to his "private preparatory school education," "his private college education for four (4) years" and "his post graduate education." Further, as to Amy, it refers to her "private college education" and her "post graduate education." It is apparent that the parties employed the term "post graduate education" to mean that program of education that followed "college" for each of their children.

The meaning of the term "college," as used in Article III, as intended by the parties, is clear. We agree with the trial court's observation that to read the term "college," as used in the footnote to paragraph 3.5, as the defendant claims, "is a tortured reading of the term in light of its usage in other sections of the agreement." See Zullo v. Smith, 179 Conn. 596, 601, 427 A.2d 409 (1980); Leonard Concrete Pipe Co. v. C. W. Blakeslee Sons, Inc., supra, 599; Downs v. National Casualty Co., supra, 494. The trial court's ruling as to the meaning of "college" in the footnote to paragraph 3.5 was not clearly erroneous.

The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in concluding that his obligation to pay for the post majority education of the Barnard children was not subject to modification. As indicated, the trial court found that the provisions of paragraph 3.10 were controlling over paragraph 3.9 and that paragraph 3.10 did not condition the defendant's obligations thereunder upon his ability to pay. Moreover, the trial court did not read paragraph 3.9 as authorizing it to modify the obligations in paragraph 3.10 to conform to the defendant's "claimed ability" to pay. We find error in this ruling of the trial court.

"The jurisdiction of the Superior Court as it relates to post majority child support derives solely from [General Statutes] 46b-66. See Kennedy v. Kennedy, [ 177 Conn. 47, 49-50, 411 A.2d 25 (1979)]." Albrecht v. Albrecht, supra, 156. Such jurisdiction is limited to the power to approve and incorporate written agreements concerning such support into its orders or decrees and to enforce such written agreements. Cattaneo v. Cattaneo, 19 Conn. App. 161, 164, 561 A.2d 967 (1989); see Arseniadis v. Arseniadis, 2 Conn. App. 239, 245, 477 A.2d 152 (1984). Agreements between parties regarding the post majority education of children are required to be in writing. General Statutes 46b-66; Albrecht v. Albrecht, supra, 150-51; Arseniadis v. Arseniadis, supra, 244. Once the provisions of a separation agreement, including provisions for the post majority education of children, are incorporated into the dissolution judgment, they can be modified by court order only if the agreement so incorporated does not preclude modification. See General Statutes 46b-86; Albrecht v. Albrecht, supra. General Statutes 46b-86 (a) provides in part that "[u]nless and to the extent that the decree precludes modification, any final order for the periodic payment of permanent alimony or support . . . may at any time thereafter be modified by a showing of a substantial change in the circumstances of either party."

We must now determine whether the agreement of the parties, incorporated in the judgment, precludes modification. We conclude that it does not. The plaintiffs claim that paragraph 3.10 of Article III controls over paragraph 3.9 is rejected. First, she maintains that paragraph 3.9 only applies to those paragraphs of Article III that precede paragraph 3.9, specifically paragraph 3.5, paragraph 3.6, paragraph 3.7 and paragraph 3.8, as it is those paragraphs, she contends, that allow for changes in the defendant's payment obligations and it is only as to those paragraphs that paragraph 3.9 allows either party to petition the court for a determination of the defendant's ability to pay. The plaintiff also argues that paragraph 3.9 has no effect on paragraph 3.10 for the following reasons: (1) paragraph 3.10 establishes the defendant's obligations to pay for the education of the children after the plaintiff's remarriage; (2) no part of paragraph 3.10 imposes any condition upon his obligations involving his ability to pay; and (3) paragraph 3.10 follows paragraph 3.9 in Article III.

The circumstances of the placement of paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 is, of course, not controlling. Intent concerning modification is to be gathered from all of Article III without regard to the order in which its component parts are placed. See Prescott v. Betts, 81 Fla. 538, 543, 88 So. 385 (1921). In addition, the parties clearly intended that the provisions of paragraph 3.9 apply to all of Article III, as it plainly provided in its introductory language: "In the event that the parties cannot agree upon the Husband's obligations or abilities under this Article III, either party may petition the Superior Court . . . ." The words used by the parties 'must be accorded their common meaning and usage where they can be sensibly applied to the subject matter of the contract.' Beach v. Beach, 141 Conn. 583, 589, 107 A.2d 629." Sturtevant v. Sturtevant, supra; see Marcus v. Marcus, supra, 141-42. This can easily be done in the present case. It is correct that paragraph 3.10 contains no language that imposes any condition upon the defendant's ability to pay or even expressly mentions his ability to pay. It is clear, however, that simply because the plaintiff has remarried and the defendant is thereby relieved of making further alimony payments he will always, for as long as required to do so by the agreement, nevertheless, be financially obligated to meet the costs of the education of the Barnard children. If the parties intended to make paragraph 3.9 inapplicable to paragraph 3.10, the agreement should have so stated; it did not, and, hence, paragraph 3.10, as well as the balance of Article III, is subject to paragraph 3.9. Where parties have their agreement in writing "'their intention is to be determined from its language and not on the basis of any intention either may have secretly entertained.' Sturman v. Socha, supra, 10. Accepting the plaintiff's claim here would render the plain language of paragraph 3.9 meaningless as to paragraph 3.10. "Parties generally do not insert meaningless provisions in their agreements and therefore every provision must be given effect if reasonably possible." Hatcho Corporation v. Della Pietra, 195 Conn. 18, 23, 485 A.2d 1285 (1985). Paragraph 3.9 is not clearly meaningless as it relates to paragraph 3.10. Therefore, the defendant's obligations under paragraph 3.10 are subject to modification and the court erred in concluding otherwise.

It was, therefore, error for the trial court to conclude that the defendant's obligations or abilities to pay post majority education costs for the Barnard children under paragraph 3.10 were not subject to modification under the dissolution decree.