The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion on a topic near and dear to my heart: garnishments. In Indiana Surgical Specialists v. MDS Courier Service, the court decided that a garnishment order was appropriate and enforceable in a case where the judgment debtor worked for a garnishee-defendant even where the judgment defendant was hired as an independent contractor as opposed to an employee. Because the judgment defendant received periodic payments for personal services, the Court reasoned that the garnishment laws applied.
That makes me happy. Frequently, I’ll have an employer try to stay out of the loop by citing the judgment defendant’s independent contractor status. I understand the motivation, but I typically don’t let them off the hook so easily. My response is to then treat the payments due the judgment defendant as accounts receivable instead of wages. Under that interpretation I can get 100% of the money (potentially minus a $300 exemption) instead of the roughly 25% obtainable under the wage garnishment statute. The downside is that I have to file new proceedings for every seizure of money (just as I would to drain a bank account) which is time consuming for me and for the courts. Also, frankly, it’s probably unduly harsh on the judgment debtor. But, if the judgment defendant isn’t making voluntary payments and the garnishee defendant is seeking to avoid involvement, my sympathetic inclinations are easily repressed.
With this new ruling, I think I’ll have an easier time getting an enforceable ongoing order garnishing the periodic payments due a judgment defendant. And, if the garnishee defendant doesn’t abide by the order, I’ll have an easier time going after the (probably more solvent) garnishee defendant’s assets. (Leaving the garnishee defendant to seek reimbursement from the judgment defendant.)
Leave a Reply