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 claim 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 crossclaim or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties otherwise permitted.
1.240 Interpleader
1 Case for Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.240 Interpleader
No comments » for 1.240 Interpleader
You must log in to post a comment.
Cade Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation established by the inventor of Gatorade for estate planning purposes. In 2008 the company was set to issue dividends, but two of its shareholders were in a dispute over their interest in the company. Both shareholders made demand for payment of the dividends. Rather than choose sides between the warring shareholders, Cade Enterprises filed an action in Interpleader pursuant to Rule 1.240, Fla. R. Civ. Pro., and sought to deposit the disputed dividends into the registry of the court, leaving the shareholders to fight over the funds.
Reiterating that Interpleader is an equitable remedy, the Court found that Rule 1.240 abolished the four part test to maintain an Interpleader action at common law and substituted a single requirement: whether the party seeking Interpleader “‘is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability’ for competing claims to a single fund.” Finding that the shareholder’s dispute over the dividends met the requirement, the First DCA upheld the trial court’s decision allowing Cade Enterprises to proceed with its Complaint in Interpleader.