Last amended July 1, 1970 · Last verified July 1, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party who may owe money or property to more than one claimant force those rival claimants into a single lawsuit to sort out who is entitled to it, instead of defending the same debt in separate, possibly conflicting suits.
Full Text of Rule 22
Text size
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 or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
In such an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party may deposit all or any part of such sum or thing with the court upon notice to every other party and leave of court. The court may make an order for the safekeeping, payment or disposition of such sum or thing.
Amendment History
Effective Date: July 1, 1970
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a narrow but real problem: a plaintiff who may owe the same debt or the same property to two or more people can join all of them as defendants and make them litigate their competing claims against each other, rather than being sued one at a time in separate actions that might produce inconsistent results. The plaintiff does not need to show that the claimants’ demands share a common origin or are identical — they can be entirely independent of one another — and the plaintiff can even deny liability to any or all of them while still forcing the interpleader.
A defendant facing the same kind of exposure — a risk of double or multiple liability to different claimants — can obtain the same relief by cross-claim or counterclaim rather than waiting to be sued as plaintiff. Rule 22 supplements, and does not cut back on, the ordinary joinder of parties allowed under Rule 20.
Once an interpleader action is under way, the party holding the disputed money or property may deposit all or part of it with the court, after giving notice to the other parties and obtaining leave of court. The court can then order how that fund or property is kept safe, paid out, or otherwise disposed of while the claimants litigate their competing rights to it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What problem does interpleader solve?
It lets a party who may owe the same money or property to two or more rival claimants force all of them into one lawsuit, instead of risking separate suits that could produce inconsistent judgments over the same debt.
Do the rival claimants' demands have to be related to use interpleader?
No. Rule 22 does not require the claims or the titles behind them to share a common origin or be identical — they can be independent of and adverse to one another.
Can a defendant use interpleader, or only a plaintiff?
A defendant facing the same risk of double or multiple liability can obtain interpleader by cross-claim or counterclaim, without needing to wait to be named as a plaintiff in a separate action.
Source & verification. The rule text, Effective Date, Amended dates, and Staff Notes are reproduced verbatim from the
official Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure (Ohio R. Civ. P. 22). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Ohio (Ohio Constitution, Art. IV, § 5(B)). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 1, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:interpleadercompeting claims to a fundstakeholder action