§22.5 Purpose and Procedure

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§22.5 PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE

This section examines the purpose and application of interpleader generally, as well as in specific Washington cases.

(1)Purpose

The purpose of interpleader is to prevent multiplicity of actions and to protect against the risk of multiple liability because of inconsistent judgments in different suits. Texas v. Florida,306 U.S. 398, 407, 59 S. Ct. 563, 83 L. Ed. 817 (1939). Interpleader also prevents one claimant from gaining undue advantage by first obtaining a judgment, and it avoids the risk of inconsistent obligations when several claimants assert rights against a single stake. U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Laborde,794 F. Supp. 454, 459 (D.P.R. 1992); In re Mandalay Shores Coop. Hous. Ass'n,21 F.3d 380, 383 (11th Cir. 1994).

Because interpleader provisions are remedial in nature, courts have construed them liberally so as best to effectuate their purposes. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire,386 U.S. 523, 533, 87 S. Ct. 1199, 18 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1967). Interpleader also allows a party who desires to avoid possible inconsistent judgments to join the potential claimants in a single suit to settle their respective rights. Interpleader is an equitable remedy and is subject to equitable defenses. Fuglede v. Wenatchee Dist. Coop.Ass'n,134 Wash. 350, 235 P. 790 (1925). Interpleader acts to protect a party not against multiple liability, but against "a double vexation on account of one liability." Am. Sur. Co. v. Grays Harbor County,187 Wash. 164, 166, 60 P.2d 10 (1936). In other words, once a party has contested liability in one forum, it may not then bring an interpleader action to extinguish further liability. Id.

The courts will not permit interpleader in every situation in which a person is subject to multiple claims. For example, an alleged tortfeasor whose liability is unlimited cannot bring an interpleader action against all potential claimants. Holcomb v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,228 F.2d 75, 81-82 (10th Cir. 1955), cert, denied, 350 U.S. 986 (1956). Generally, a party seeking interpleader must be free from blame in causing the controversy at issue. In addition, interpleader is not appropriate when the stakeholder stands as a wrongdoer with respect to the subj ect matter of the suit or any claimants. See, e.g., Farmers Irrig. Ditch & Reservoir Co. v. Kane,845 F.2d 229 (10th Cir. 1988). As one federal district court has observed: "Interpleader is not a 'bill of peace' or legal vacuum cleaner intended to suck up all related claims into a single proceeding. It is not available whenever there are multiple claimants against a particular defendant... ."Nevada ex rel. Colo. River Comm'n ofNev. v. Pioneer Cos.,245 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1128 (D. Nev. 2003) (quoting 4 James W Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §22.02[1] (3d ed. 2002)). Historically, statutory interpleader in...