Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead, in an action brought for that purpose, when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to multiple liability. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross-claim or counterclaim. If such a defendant admits being subject to liability, that defendant may, upon paying the amount claimed or delivering the property claimed or its value into court or to such person as the court may direct, move for an order to substitute the claimants other than the plaintiff as defendants in the movant’s stead. On compliance with the terms of such order, the defendant shall be discharged and the action shall proceed against the substituted defendants. It is not ground for objection to such joinder or to such motion 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 with but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. The provisions of this rule do not restrict the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
Rule 22.Interpleader
Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party facing competing claims to the same money or property force all the claimants into one lawsuit so the dispute over who deserves it gets settled at once.
Full Text of Rule 22
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a specific problem: someone holding money or property is confronted by multiple people, each claiming they are entitled to it, and the holder risks having to pay or turn it over more than once if separate lawsuits produce conflicting results. Rule 22 lets the plaintiff bring all of those competing claimants into a single action as defendants and require them to fight it out amongst themselves over who has the better claim. A defendant facing similar exposure can raise interpleader too, through a cross-claim or counterclaim instead of starting a new case.
If a defendant is willing to admit it owes the money or owns the property but does not know who should get it, that defendant can pay the disputed amount or deliver the property into court, or to whoever the court designates, and then ask to be replaced in the case by the actual claimants. Once that defendant follows the court’s order, it is released from the case, and the fight continues among the substituted claimants instead.
The rule does not require the claims of different claimants to have anything in common with each other. They do not need a shared origin, they can be based on completely different legal titles, and they do not even have to be consistent with one another — one claimant’s theory can directly contradict another’s. It is also not a problem if the plaintiff denies owing anything to any of the claimants. And using interpleader does not cut off a party’s ability to join additional parties under the broader permissive joinder rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is interpleader for?
It lets someone facing multiple competing claims to the same money or property force the claimants into one lawsuit so a court can decide who is entitled to it, instead of the holder risking being sued separately by each claimant.
Do the competing claims have to be related to each other?
No. The claims do not need a common origin or identical legal basis, and can even be inconsistent with or adverse to one another.
Can a defendant who admits owing money get out of the case?
Yes. A defendant who admits liability can pay the amount owed or deliver the property into court, then move to substitute the actual claimants as defendants in its place, and once it complies with the court’s order it is discharged from the case.
Can the plaintiff use interpleader while still denying it owes anyone anything?
Yes, it is not a valid objection to interpleader that the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
Does interpleader limit joining other parties in the case?
No, the rule specifically states it does not restrict the joinder of parties otherwise permitted under the permissive joinder rule.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure (Minn. R. Civ. P. 22). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 480.051). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleader rule