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 in an action 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 January 1, 2001 · Last verified July 8, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party facing competing claims to the same fund or property join all the rival claimants as defendants and force them to litigate against each other, even if their claims do not share a common origin or the party denies owing anyone anything at all.
Full Text of Rule 22
Advisory Committee’s Notes & Reporter’s Notes
Advisory Committee’s Notes — January 1, 2001
P.L. 1999, Chapter 731, §§ ZZZ-2 et seq. unified the Superior Court and the District Court civil jurisdiction, with certain stated exceptions. Rule 22 is amended to delete the reference to the Superior Court, since actions for interpleader may now also be brought in the District Court.
Reporter's Notes — December 1, 1959
This rule, which is like Federal Rule 22(1), removes a number of technical restrictions which grew up under the old equity practice and caused trouble. It avoids the confusion that developed around bills of strict interpleader and bills in the nature of interpleader.
A comparison of the rule with the leading Maine case on interpleader, First National Bank of Portland v. Reynolds, 127 Me. 340, 143 A. 266 (1928), will indicate the changes made by the rule. The privity requirement is eliminated, so that no longer is it necessary that all of the adverse claims be dependent or derived from a common source. This requirement was often difficult of application and was somewhat watered down by the courts, as is shown in the Reynolds case itself. The requirement that the person asking the relief must not have nor claim any interest in the subject matter is also specifically abrogated. The interpleader plaintiff may, in other words, plead that he owes neither claimant anything; but that if he does, he does not know which. The rule permits a defendant exposed to multiple liability to admit liability, pay the money into court, and be dismissed from the case. But payment into court is not required. Cf. Gardiner Savings Institution v. Emerson, 91 Me. 535, 40 A. 551 (1898).
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a specific problem: someone holding money or property is threatened with multiple claims to it and risks having to pay twice if two different courts reach conflicting answers. Rule 22 lets that party join every claimant as a defendant and let the court sort out who is entitled to what, in one proceeding, rather than defending separate lawsuits with inconsistent outcomes.
Unlike the old, more rigid equity practice, the rule does not require the claimants’ interests to share a common origin or that the party bringing the action admit owing anything — a party can maintain that it owes nothing to anyone, or is uncertain which claimant is entitled to payment, and still interplead them all. A defendant already facing similar exposure in an ongoing case can use the same device through a cross-claim or counterclaim, and Rule 22’s interpleader supplements, rather than limits, the broader party-joinder rules in Rule 20.
Frequently Asked Questions
What problem does interpleader under Rule 22 solve?
It protects a party holding money or property from having to defend separate lawsuits by different claimants to the same fund, which risks inconsistent judgments and double liability; interpleader brings all the claimants into one case to resolve who is entitled to what.
Do the interpleaded claims have to come from the same source?
No. Rule 22 allows interpleader even where the claims or the titles they depend on share no common origin and are independent of and adverse to one another.
Can a party interplead claimants while denying it owes anyone anything?
Yes. The party bringing the action may aver that it is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants and still use interpleader to resolve the competing claims.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee’s Notes / Reporter’s
Notes are reproduced verbatim from the official Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (Me. R. Civ. P. 22), prescribed by the
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (4 M.R.S. § 8, the Rules Enabling Act). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 8, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleadercompeting claims to same fundstakeholder interpleader