first including that amount for purposes of calculating the basic child-support obligation. Income is defined for purposes of the child-support guidelines as “actual gross income of a parent.” See Rule 32(B)(1), Ala. R. Jud. Admin. Rule 32(B)(2)(a) defines “gross income” as including “income from any source.” As this court explained in Massey v. Massey, 706 So.2d 1272 (Ala.Civ.App.1997): “[T]he trial court must take into account all sources of income.... The trial court has no discretion in this matter.... Thus, as recognized by our Supreme Court, the guidelines require the trial court to consider the resources of the parents, and not simply their incomes, in determining child support.” 706 So.2d at 1274 (emphasis added); see also Stinson v. Stinson, 729 So.2d 864 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the trial court utilized
holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums holding widows claim that deceased husbands former employer and its life insurance carrier were negligent in their handling of husbands conversion of benefits was preempted by erisa finding the liability of the defendants is dependent upon the existence of the erisa plan and the interpretation of rights conferred by it holding that the portion of the retirementplan annuity paid for by the employer but not the portion paid for by the employee  is includable in the marital estate  holding that the value of a car for which the employer supplied the fuel and paid for the insurance was part of the husbands income holding the appellant needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her husbands death fell within the terms of the insurance policy