Rule 31.Interpleader
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 11, 2026
Full Text of Rule 31
Amendment History
[CCP 12/2/78; amended by 1991 c.733 § 1 ; § A, C amended by CCP 12/12/20, eff. 1/1/2022]
Plain-English Summary
A stakeholder holding money or property that several people claim can get caught in the crossfire — sued by one claimant, then another, and at risk of paying the same debt twice. Rule 31 lets that party, as plaintiff, join every rival claimant as a defendant and force them to fight out who is entitled to the money in one case rather than several. The claims do not need to share a common origin or be consistent with each other, and the party filing the interpleader can even deny owing anything to some or all of the claimants. A defendant who faces the same kind of exposure can raise interpleader through a cross-claim or counterclaim instead of starting a new suit, and none of this narrows the ordinary joinder of parties allowed elsewhere in these rules — it adds another option.
Once interpleader is underway, the court can order the disputed property or amount deposited with the court, held in some other secure way, or covered by a bond sufficient to pay whatever is admitted to be owed. The court can then bar the claimants from suing the stakeholder anywhere else over the same money, and it can release the stakeholder from further liability on the deposited or secured property before it ever decides which claimant is entitled to it.
Rule 31 also addresses who pays for the lawyer who sets this up. The party who interpleads funds can recover a reasonable attorney fee, on top of costs and disbursements, once the court orders the money deposited, secured, or otherwise preserved — and that fee comes out of the interpled fund itself, not the stakeholder’s own pocket. In deciding how much to award, the court weighs the general statutory factors for fee awards along with three questions specific to interpleader: whether, in equity, the stakeholder’s own role in the underlying dispute should count against an award; whether the stakeholder had to fend off multiple lawsuits over the same money; and whether the interpleader served the interests of justice and helped resolve the dispute. One group is left out of this fee-shifting entirely: a surety who was already paid to take on the risk of the funds or property at stake.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is interpleader, and who uses it?
Interpleader is a procedure for a party holding money or property that several people claim, letting that party bring all the rival claimants into one lawsuit rather than risk being sued separately by each of them and possibly paying the same debt more than once.
Do the rival claims have to be related to each other to use interpleader?
No. Rule 31 says it is not a ground for objection that the claimants’ claims, or the titles they rely on, lack a common origin, are inconsistent with one another, or are adverse to and independent of each other — and the party filing the interpleader can even deny owing anything to some or all of the claimants.
Can a defendant use interpleader, or only a plaintiff?
A defendant who faces the same kind of double or multiple liability can obtain interpleader too, by raising it as a cross-claim or counterclaim rather than filing a separate action.
Who pays the attorney fees in an Oregon interpleader case?
The party who interpleads the funds may recover a reasonable attorney fee and costs once the court orders the money deposited, secured, or preserved, and that fee is paid out of the interpled fund itself. A surety who was already compensated for taking on the risk of the funds does not share in this fee-shifting.