Colorado

Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure

Rule 22 – Interpleader

(1) 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.
(2) In any civil action of interpleader, a district court may enter its order restraining all claimants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any court of this state affecting the property, instrument, or obligation involved in the interpleader action until further order of the court.

Such district court shall hear and determine the case, and may discharge the plaintiff from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.

C.R.C.P. 22

Annotation Law reviews. For article, “Pleadings, Rules 7 to 25 “, see 28 Dicta 368 (1951). Rule must be given liberal construction. In determining the right of one to intervene in an action, the liberal construction of the rules of civil procedure called for in C.R.C.P. 1 must be followed. Senne v. Conley, 110 Colo. 270, 133 P.2d 381 (1943). Trial court’s order not subject to collateral attack in interpleader action. McLeod v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 186 Colo. 234, 526 P.2d 1318 (1974). Amended pleading asserting an interpleader claim is not futile if it alleges facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that exposure to double or multiple liability may exist. Certainty of exposure to double or multiple liability is not the test; rather, the allegations must meet a minimum threshold of substantiality. Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002). For earlier cases affording a limited sort of interpleader, see Fischer v. Hanna, 8 Colo. App. 471, 47 P. 303 (1896); Price v. Lucky Four Gold Mining Co., 56 Colo. 163, 136 P. 1021 (1913); Engineer’s Constr. Corp. v. Tolbert, 74 Colo. 542, 223 P. 56 (1924) (decided under ยง 18 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, which was replaced by the Rules of Civil Procedure in 1941). Applied in Sch. Dist. No. 11 v. Colo. Springs Teachers Ass’n, 41 Colo. App. 267, 583 P.2d 952 (1978); M & G Engines v. Mroch, 631 P.2d 1177 (Colo. App. 1981); West Greeley Nat’l Bank v. Wygant, 650 P.2d 1339 (Colo. App. 1982).

For joinder of additional parties pursuant to counterclaims or cross claims, see C.R.C.P. 13(h); for proper venue, see C.R.C.P. 98.