(a) 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 he 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, third-party complaint 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 July 1, 2001 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party holding disputed money or property force rival claimants into a single lawsuit instead of facing separate suits that could produce double liability.
Full Text of Rule 22
(b) A plaintiff who disclaims any interest in the money or property that is the subject of the interpleader action shall, upon depositing the money or property in the registry of the court, be discharged from all liability. The court may make an award of reasonable litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees, to such a plaintiff.
Amendment History
Amended November 8, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; amended May 24, 2001, effective July 1, 2001.
Reporter's Notes
Reporter’s Notes to Rule 22: 1. Rule 22 is identical to FRCP 22 and does alter prior Arkansas law. Superseded Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 27-816 (Repl. 1962), et seq. set forth prior interpleader procedure and it is this procedure, rather than the substance of prior law which is changed by this rule.
2. Previously, upon depositing money or property into the registry of the court, a plaintiff was released from all further liability and was awarded his costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee. Under this rule, as under FRCP 22, the allowance of costs and fees rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Oliver, 412 F.2d 938 (C.C.A. 5th, 1969).
3. Prior Arkansas law did not expressly require a deposit of the disputed funds or property into the registry of the court, but it was clear that the plaintiff could not be discharged from further liability or awarded costs and fees until he had deposited the money or property. Under this and the Federal Rule, a deposit is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, but may be required by the court in its discretion so as to safeguard the property and insure the satisfaction of a judgment. Emmco Ins. Co. v. Frankford Trust Co., 352 F. Supp. 130 (D.C Pa., 1972). Compare, however, Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc. v. Murphy Industries, Inc., 472 F.2d 893 (C.C.A. 10th, 1973).
4. Prior Arkansas law required interpleader actions to be brought in chancery court. The decisions under FRCP 22 make it clear that an interpleader is equitable in nature. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Leech, 326 F. Supp. 598 (D.C. Pa., 1971); Home Ins. Co. v. Moore, 499 F.2d 1202 (C.C.A. 8th, 1974). Under this rule, however, interpleader actions are not limited to courts of equity.
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 1993 Amendment: Rule 22 is amended by adding new subdivision (b), which provides that a disinterested stakeholder—i.e., a plaintiff who disclaims any interest in the money or property—is to be discharged from liability upon depositing the money or property in the registry of the court. Further, such a disinterested stakeholder may be awarded attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses, in the discretion of the court. Subdivision (b) is based on a statute that was superseded when Rule 22 was adopted; however, the revised rule departs from the statute by making a fee award discretionary rather than mandatory. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-816 (Repl. 1962). Absent express authorization, a fee award is impermissible in an interpleader action, even though the stakeholder is disinterested and brings about resolution of the conflicting claims by initiating the action. See, e.g., Saunders v. Kleier, 296 Ark. 25, 751 S.W.2d 343 (1988).
Addition to Reporter’s Notes, 2001 Amendment: The word "trial," which modified "court" in the second sentence of subdivision (b), has been deleted. Constitutional Amendment 80 established the circuit courts as the "trial courts of original jurisdiction" in the state and abolished the separate chancery and probate courts.
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a particular headache: someone is holding money or property that two or more people claim, and paying the wrong claimant could mean paying twice. Rule 22 lets that stakeholder join every rival claimant as a defendant in one action and let the court sort out who is entitled to what. The claims don't need to share a common origin or rest on identical theories — they can be unrelated to each other, so long as each one points at the same fund or property held by the plaintiff. It doesn't matter that the plaintiff denies owing anything to any of the claimants; the point of interpleader is to let the court decide that question once, in one proceeding.
A defendant who faces the same kind of double exposure can use interpleader too, by cross-claim, third-party complaint, or counterclaim, and the rule supplements rather than replaces the broader joinder options in Rule 20.
Subdivision (b) rewards the stakeholder who wants out of the dispute entirely. A plaintiff who disclaims any personal interest in the disputed money or property can deposit it with the court registry and be discharged from further liability once the claimants sort out their competing rights to what's left. The court has discretion, not an obligation, to award that disinterested stakeholder its litigation expenses and attorney's fees for having brought the claimants together in one case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can bring an interpleader action under Rule 22?
Anyone holding money or property claimed by two or more people can file an interpleader action naming the rival claimants as defendants. A defendant already facing that same kind of double exposure can raise interpleader too, through a cross-claim, third-party complaint, or counterclaim.
Do the claims against the stakeholder have to be related to each other?
No. Rule 22 says it's not a ground for objection that the claimants' theories differ, lack a common origin, or are adverse to and independent of one another. The only requirement is that each claim exposes the stakeholder to potential double or multiple liability on the same fund or property.
What happens when the plaintiff deposits the disputed funds with the court?
A plaintiff who disclaims any interest in the money or property and deposits it in the court registry is discharged from further liability. The remaining claimants then litigate among themselves over who is entitled to the deposited funds.
Is depositing the funds required before an interpleader case can proceed?
No. A deposit isn't a jurisdictional prerequisite. A court can require one in its discretion to safeguard the property and make sure a later judgment can be satisfied, but the case itself doesn't depend on the deposit having already been made.
Can the stakeholder recover attorney's fees for bringing the interpleader action?
The court may award reasonable litigation expenses and attorney's fees to a disinterested stakeholder, but the award is discretionary rather than automatic. A stakeholder isn't entitled to fees just because it brought the claimants together and stayed neutral.
Does Rule 22 limit interpleader to a particular type of court?
No. Arkansas's earlier interpleader procedure required these cases to be filed in chancery court, but interpleader under Rule 22 isn't limited to a court of equity.
Source & verification. Rule text, Reporter's Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, prescribed by
the Arkansas Supreme Court. The plain-English summary is original and written by us.
Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleader arkansasrival claims to same fundstakeholder lawsuitdouble liability lawsuitdeposit disputed funds with court