Garnishment Question

[caleramom]

What is the name of your state? Alabama

I filed a garnishment against my exhusband. He works as a carpet installer and his employer regards him as a "subcontractor". They conveyed to me that since he is a subcontractor, he is not considered an employee and therefore cannot be garnished.

My garnishment form clearly states the garnishee must answer (yes) if they will be indebted to the defendant in the future by existing contract.

It is my understanding this garnishment is not about "employee" but about the garnishee paying monies to the defendant. It shouldn't matter if they don't consider him an employee - if he works for them on a daily basis and they give him a check - they should be made to comply with the garnishment.

Is the garnishee correct or am I?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Phnx02]

What is the name of your state? Alabama

I filed a garnishment against my exhusband. He works as a carpet installer and his employer regards him as a "subcontractor". They conveyed to me that since he is a subcontractor, he is not considered an employee and therefore cannot be garnished.

My garnishment form clearly states the garnishee must answer (yes) if they will be indebted to the defendant in the future by existing contract.

It is my understanding this garnishment is not about "employee" but about the garnishee paying monies to the defendant. It shouldn't matter if they don't consider him an employee - if he works for them on a daily basis and they give him a check - they should be made to comply with the garnishment.

Is the garnishee correct or am I?

Thanks in advance!

Not sure about the law regarding this, but having worked in the past as a contractor, I can tell you this.....even though the company I worked for full-time, paid me for services rendered by company issued paycheck, they did NOT consider themselves my employer at any time.....thus, I was categorized "self-employed" by them AND the IRS and had to file and pay taxes as such. Also, because of this status, I was not eligible for company health benefits, 401K, disability, SS, or unemployment benefits. It sucked. Companies do this all the time and by employing people this way, they get out of paying/providing all the above. If your ex is employed this way, I think the company he "sub-contracts" with is right is saying they are not legally entitled to garnish his wages. Sorry!