Persons having claims against the plaintiff in an action in a superior court 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 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
Group IV: Parties · Last amended July 1, 2002 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 22 lets a party who owes money or property, but faces competing claims to it from several people, bring all the claimants into a single suit rather than risk paying twice.
Full Text of Rule 22
Notes
Reporter’s Notes—2002 Amendment: Rule 22 is amended to reflect the abrogation of the District Court Civil Rules and the resulting applicability of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure to District Court civil actions. Interpleader was not permitted in the District Court under the former District Court Civil Rules.
Reporter’s Notes: This rule is identical to Federal Rule 22(1). Federal Rule 22(2), incorporating federal statutory interpleader, has, of course, been omitted. The rule makes generally available the remedy of interpleader previously recognized in chancery. See former Chancery Rule 26; State v. Rogers, 123 Vt. 422, 193 A.2d 920 (1963). The rule, however, is broader than the prior practice, in that it expressly permits the plaintiff to have an interest in the claim and does not require that the claims to the fund have a common origin. Cf. State v. Rogers, supra. The vice that the rule is intended to prevent is not double liability, but double vexation as to a single liability. Thus, even unliquidated tort claims may be the subject of interpleader at the behest of an insurer whose liability is limited to the insurance fund so that the tort claimants’ interests are adverse. See 2 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 551 (Wright ed. 1961); cf. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967). Where there is no such limitation on liability, however, as in the case of the actual defendant in a tort claim, interpleader is not available as a means by which a potential defendant can force all claimants against him into a single proceeding. If such relief is available at all it would be by action for declaratory judgment. See Reporter’s Notes to Rule 57. Cf. Poulin v. Town of Danville, 128 Vt. 161, 260 A.2d 208 (1969); 127 Vt. 421, 250 A.2d 842 (1969).
Amendment History
Amended Mar. 6, 2002, eff. July 1, 2002.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 22 addresses a narrow but real problem: what happens when two or more people claim the same debt or fund, and paying one might expose the payer to a second claim from someone else? The rule lets the party holding the money or property - typically a plaintiff, though a defendant can use it too through a cross-claim or counterclaim - gather all the rival claimants into one lawsuit and let the court sort out who is entitled to what.
The rule removes several old objections to interpleader. The claimants do not need to trace their claims to a common source, and their claims can be adverse and unrelated to one another. The party seeking interpleader can even admit it is uncertain whether it owes anything to any of the claimants. What matters is the risk of double or multiple liability on a single obligation, not any defect in how the claims arose.
Rule 22 works alongside Rule 20's party-joinder provisions rather than replacing them. The Reporter's Notes describe interpleader as a remedy carried over from Vermont's old chancery practice, broadened so a stakeholder with a limited fund - an insurer, for example - can pull every potential claimant into one proceeding instead of defending suit after suit over the same money.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can use Rule 22 to interplead claimants?
Any plaintiff facing claims from two or more people that could expose the plaintiff to double or multiple liability may join those claimants as defendants and require them to interplead. A defendant facing the same kind of risk can obtain the same relief through a cross-claim or counterclaim.
Do the claimants' claims have to come from the same source?
No. Rule 22 states that it is not a ground for objection that the claims or the titles on which they depend lack a common origin, are not identical, or are adverse to and independent of one another.
Can a party use interpleader while denying it owes anyone anything?
Yes. The rule allows interpleader even where the party bringing it avers that it is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.
How does Rule 22 relate to Rule 20 on joinder of parties?
What kind of risk justifies interpleader under this rule?
Interpleader is available when the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability because several people assert claims to the same debt, fund, or property - the point is to prevent multiple suits, and multiple recoveries, over a single liability.
Source & verification. Rule text, official Reporter's Notes, and
amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure,
adopted by the Vermont Supreme Court. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: interpleadermultiple claimants same fundstakeholder lawsuitVRCP 22double liability rule