(a) Interpleader May Be Required . 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 counter-claim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
Rule 22.Interpleader
Group IV: Parties · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party facing competing claims to the same money or property force all the claimants into a single case, and lets that party step out of the dispute by depositing the funds, delivering the property, or posting a bond with the court.
Full Text of Rule 22
(b) Release From Liability, Deposit, Delivery, or Bond. Any party seeking interpleader, as provided in subdivision (a) of this rule, may deposit with the court the amount claimed, or deliver to the court or as otherwise directed by the court the property claimed, or give bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court may deem proper, conditioned upon the compliance by the plaintiff with the further order of judgment of the court with respect to the subject matter of the controversy. The court may thereupon order such party discharged from liability as to such claims, and the action continued as between claimants of such money or property.
Notes
Note: This Rule 22(a) is the same as the Federal Rule. Federal Rule 22(b) is deleted because it refers to the Federal Interpleader Act which is inapplicable in State procedure. Rule 22(a) broadens the remedy of interpleader permitted under Code § 15-5-200. First, the remedy is of right and not in the discretion of the court. Second, interpleader may be brought by the applicant whether or not he is a party to the pending action. The remedy is not limited to defensive interpleader. Third, the traditional requirement that "the same debt or property" be claimed by the competing claimants gave rise to many technical and unjust decisions and has been abolished. Fourth, the plaintiff may aver that he is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants, and may remain in the litigation as a party. Fifth, there is no requirement that the applicant file an affidavit denying collusion. Thus the historical common law requirements of bills of interpleader or bills in the nature of interpleader are abolished.
Note: This Rule 22(b) is new, and not in the Federal Rule. It is added to provide expressly for payment into court and discharge from liability as is now provided by Code § 15-5-200.
Plain-English Summary
Interpleader solves a specific bind: someone is holding money or property that more than one person claims, and paying the wrong claimant risks having to pay again. Rule 22(a) lets that stakeholder join every claimant as a defendant in one action rather than facing separate lawsuits from each of them. The claimants do not need to be asserting the same theory or tracing their claims to a common source — their claims can be unrelated to one another and even inconsistent, and the party bringing the interpleader can still maintain that it owes nothing to some or all of them. A defendant already facing that kind of exposure can raise interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim instead of starting a new action.
Rule 22(a) also makes clear that interpleader supplements rather than restricts the ordinary joinder of parties allowed under Rule 20. It is an additional route to bring claimants together, not a narrower one.
Rule 22(b) gives the stakeholder a way out of the middle. By depositing the disputed amount with the court, delivering the disputed property, or posting a bond conditioned on complying with whatever the court eventually orders, the party can ask to be discharged from further liability on the claims. Once discharged, the case continues as a contest among the claimants over the money or property, without the original stakeholder still exposed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kind of situation calls for interpleader?
A typical example is a party — an insurer, an escrow holder, an employer with disputed benefits — sitting on a fund or asset that more than one person claims, where paying one claimant risks a second judgment in favor of another.
Do the competing claims have to arise from the same transaction?
No. Rule 22(a) expressly allows interpleader even when the claims or the titles behind them share no common origin, are not identical, and are adverse to and independent of one another.
Can I use interpleader if I am already a defendant in the case?
Yes. A defendant exposed to similar liability from competing claimants can obtain interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim rather than filing a separate action.
Does bringing an interpleader action mean I admit I owe someone the money?
No. The rule specifically preserves the ability of the party seeking interpleader to assert that it is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
What happens to the disputed money or property while the claimants fight it out?
Under Rule 22(b), the stakeholder can deposit the amount claimed with the court, deliver the property, or post a bond, and ask the court to be discharged from liability so the remaining dispute is between the claimants alone.
Does Rule 22 replace the joinder rules?
No, the rule says its provisions supplement and do not limit the joinder of parties otherwise permitted under Rule 20.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Notes, and amendment
history are reproduced verbatim from the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: interpleader South Carolinacompeting claims to same funddepositing disputed funds with courtstakeholder liability