A claim and counterclaim shall not be set off against each other, except by agreement of both parties or unless required by statute. The court, on motion, may order that both parties make payment into court for distribution, if it finds that the obligation of either party is likely to be uncollectible. If there are multiple parties and separate set-off issues, each set-off issue should be determined independently of the others. The court shall distribute the funds received and declare obligations discharged as if the payment into court by either party had been a payment to the other party and any distribution of those funds back to the party making payment had been a payment to that party by the other party.
Rule 1.957.On claim and counterclaim
Division IX: Trial and Judgment · Last amended February 15, 2002 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 1.957 bars automatically netting a claim against a counterclaim, but lets the court order both sides to pay their judgments into court for distribution when one party's obligation looks likely to go uncollected.
Full Text of Rule 1.957
Plain-English Summary
Winning a claim and losing a counterclaim in the same case does not mean the two judgments cancel each other out. Rule 1.957 states that a claim and counterclaim are not set off against each other except by agreement of both parties or when a statute requires it. Absent one of those, both judgments stand on their own, and each side has to collect — or pay — separately.
The rule gives the court one specific tool to protect that arrangement when it might otherwise leave one party empty-handed. On motion, if the court finds that either party's obligation is likely to be uncollectible, it may order both parties to pay into court for distribution. Where there are multiple parties and more than one set-off question, each is decided on its own. The court then distributes the funds and treats the payments as though they had passed directly between the parties — a payment into court counts as a payment to the other side, and any money distributed back to the party who paid it in counts as a payment from the other side back to them.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I win my claim and my opponent wins their counterclaim, do the two judgments cancel each other out?
Not automatically. Rule 1.957 states that a claim and counterclaim are not set off against each other unless both parties agree or a statute requires it.
Can a court ever force something like a set-off?
Not a set-off exactly, but a similar practical result — on motion, the court may order both parties to pay their judgments into court for distribution if it finds either party's obligation is likely to be uncollectible.
What happens when there are multiple parties and more than one set-off question?
Rule 1.957 directs that each set-off issue be determined independently of the others.
If I pay my judgment into court under this rule, is that treated as if I paid my opponent directly?
Yes. The rule treats a payment into court, and any distribution back to the party who paid, as if the payments had been made directly between the parties.
Why would a court order payment into court instead of letting each side collect on its own judgment?
To keep one party's judgment from becoming worthless if the other side cannot pay, while preventing that same side from fully collecting its own judgment without paying anything back.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Comment are
reproduced verbatim from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Iowa Supreme Court. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: iowa set off claim and counterclaimpayment into court judgment iowaiowa rule 1.957set off counterclaim judgment iowauncollectible judgment set off iowa