(a) Plaintiff or defendant. Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another or that the plaintiff avers that the plaintiff is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross-claim or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
Rule 22.Interpleader.
Last amended August 1, 2004 · Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets someone caught between rival claimants to the same money or property force all the claimants into one lawsuit, hand the disputed fund or property over to the court, and step out of the fight while the claimants litigate who owns it.
Full Text of Rule 22
(b) Release from liability; deposit or delivery. Any party seeking interpleader, as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule, may deposit with the court the amount claimed, or deliver to the court or as otherwise directed by the court the property claimed, and the court may thereupon order such party discharged from liability as to such claims, and the action continued as between the claimants of such money or property.
(c) Attorney fees. Regardless of whether the action was formerly understood to be a bill of interpleader or a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader, the court may allow to one or more of the parties a reasonable sum or sums for counsel fees and disbursements payable out of said fund or property; but no such allowance shall be made unless it is claimed in a pleading.
(dc) District court rule. Rule 22 applies in the district courts.
Amendment History
[Amended eff. 10-1-95; Amended eff. 8-1-2004.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
Subdivision (a) following verbatim Federal Rule 22(1), codifies interpleader as it developed in the courts of equity. It modernizes that procedure, however, and particularly by the second sentence, ends the famous “four conditions” which restricted interpleader in equity. John A. Moore & Co. v. McConkey, 240 Mo.App. 198, 203 S.W.2d 512 (1947); John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Yarrow, 95 F.Supp. 185 (E.D.Pa.1951); Wright, Joinder of Claims and Parties under Modern Pleading Rules, 36 Minn.L.Rev. 580, 621-3 (1952). Equity Rule 36, which is superseded by this Rule, had a similar provision.
As a corollary to the interpleader which developed in equity, many states provided by statute for a somewhat similar procedure in law actions, by which a party who was sued could pay the amount demanded into court, be discharged from liability, and have other claimants of the fund substituted in his stead as defendants. E.g., Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 1179. Rule 22(a), like Federal Rule 22, makes adequate provision for a defendant, as well as a plaintiff, to seek interpleader, but it has no express provision for payment of the fund into court and discharge from liability. Thus subdivision (b) has been added to this effect. It is modelled on Ariz.R.C.P. 22(b); and see also Minn.R.C.P. 22, and proposed N.Dak.R.C.P. 22(b). As to deposit in court, see also Rule 67.
As to venue requirements in an interpleader action, see Rule 82(c).
The statutory requirement for verification, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 1179 is ended by Rule 11.
This rule expressly deals with the subject of attorneys’ fees. Equity Rule 36, superseded by this Rule, spoke to Bills of Interpleader and Bills in the Nature of Interpleader and further provided for attorneys’ fees without recognizing any distinction in the event the action was a Bill in the Nature of Bill of Interpleader. This Rule carries forward such interpretation.
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 22
The amendment is technical. No substantive change is intended.
Committee Comments to Amendment to Rule 22(c) Effective August 1, 2004
Rule 22(c) was amended to replace the phrase “the complaint or answer” with “a pleading,” because a claim for interpleader may be contained in any pleading, including a counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party claim, etc.
Note from the reporter of decisions: The order amending Rules 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6(a), 7(b)(2), 17(a), 22(c), and 26(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, effective August 1, 2004, is published in that volume of Alabama Reporter that contains Alabama cases from 867 So.2d.
Plain-English Summary
Picture a business holding a fund that two or more people each claim as their own — an insurer holding policy proceeds two beneficiaries both claim, a bank holding an account two heirs both claim, or anyone else sitting on money or property caught in someone else’s dispute. Without interpleader, that stakeholder risks being sued separately by each claimant and possibly having to pay out more than once, or paying the wrong person and then getting sued by the right one. Rule 22 solves this by letting the stakeholder bring every claimant into a single action, so one court decides once and for all who is entitled to the fund.
Rule 22 does away with a set of older, technical requirements that used to limit this kind of interpleader — there is no need for the claimants’ competing claims to arise from a common source, to be legally identical, or to be otherwise clean and matching. Adverse and unrelated claims to the same fund qualify, and the stakeholder can even use interpleader while denying it owes anything to anyone. Interpleader isn’t limited to plaintiffs, either: a defendant already facing competing claims can raise interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim. And this special joinder tool doesn’t crowd out the ordinary joinder rules; it works alongside them.
Once the interpleader action is underway, the stakeholder can deposit the disputed money, or turn over the disputed property, to the court, and ask to be released from the fight entirely. If the court agrees the stakeholder is truly neutral, it discharges the stakeholder from liability on that fund and lets the case continue as a contest purely among the claimants — though a stakeholder can’t use this route to escape a separate, independent claim that isn’t about the fund itself. The court also has discretion to order that reasonable attorney fees and costs be paid out of the fund itself, to one or more of the parties, but only if that request was raised in a pleading; a court cannot make a losing claimant pay another party’s fees out of pocket under this rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is interpleader, in plain terms?
It is a procedure that lets someone holding money or property claimed by two or more rival claimants bring all those claimants into one lawsuit, so a single court decides who is entitled to it, instead of the stakeholder facing separate lawsuits from each claimant.
Do the competing claims have to be related to each other to use interpleader?
No. Rule 22 specifically allows interpleader even when the claimants’ claims do not share a common origin and are adverse to and independent of one another. They just have to be claims against the same fund or property that expose the stakeholder to double or multiple liability.
Can I use interpleader if I’m being sued as a defendant rather than filing as a plaintiff?
Yes. A defendant already facing conflicting claims can seek interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim, not only as an original plaintiff.
If I pay the disputed money into court, am I completely done with the case?
You can be released from liability regarding the fund itself once the court is satisfied you are a neutral stakeholder, but that discharge does not protect you from a separate claim that someone has against you independent of the fund.
Can I get my attorney fees paid for bringing an interpleader action?
The court has discretion to award reasonable attorney fees and costs out of the disputed fund to one or more parties, but only if that request was raised in a pleading, and the fee award comes out of the fund itself rather than directly from a losing claimant’s pocket.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 22). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleadercompeting claims to same fundstakeholder multiple claimantsdepositing disputed funds with the courtdouble liability protectionAla. R. Civ. P. 22