1. The head-of-household exemption in Florida protects a portion of a head of household’s earnings from wage garnishment for six months if they provide more than half the financial support for their household’s dependents.
2. To qualify for the exemption, the head of household must earn compensation for personal services or labor, whether it be wages, salary, commission, or bonus.
3. Courts in Florida have struggled to consistently apply the exemption to independent contractor income, and determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists is crucial to determining whether the exemption applies.
4. Courts consider factors such as control of the worker’s conduct, selection and engagement of the worker, power of dismissal, and payment of wages when determining the nature of the working relationship.
5. The determinative factor for courts is who holds the power to dictate the manner in which the work is completed. If the worker holds this power, the court will likely determine he is an independent contractor. – Courts initially distinguished between employees and independent contractors, determining that independent contractor income did not fall within the head-of-household exemption.
– The method of calculating wages was determined to be immaterial to the exemption’s applicability, as wages could be calculated by work done.
– Most courts have interpreted the precedent set in Patten Package Co. v. Houser as establishing that independent contractors cannot qualify for the head-of-household exemption.
– Some courts have taken a totality of the circumstances approach, considering whether the individual’s activities were essentially a job or running a business to determine exemption eligibility.
– Factors considered in this determination include the pattern of wages and the nature of the employment agreement. 1. In re Pettit: A salesperson was deemed to qualify for the exemption despite being labeled as an independent contractor, based on the negotiated verbal agreement and the employer’s control over the individual’s pay.
2. In re Bhalla: The court exempted a worker’s monthly earnings despite the worker’s 50% ownership interest in the company, reasoning that the worker’s services were separate from their responsibilities as an owner and that the other 50% owner had control over the worker’s compensation.
3. Courts have struggled to consistently apply the head-of-household exemption to independent contractors, leading to a case-by-case framework for deciding difficult cases.
https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2019/04/florida-head-of-household-wage-garnishment-exemption-independent-contractor/
Leave a Reply