Opinion ID: 1125005
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Interpleader Is Appropriate Even Where the Stakeholder May Be Independently Liable to a Claimant.

Text: A threshold question in this case is whether NBA was entitled to file an interpleader. We answer in the affirmative. Both the Browns, as owners of NCC, and Mrs. Higashi assert that they are entitled to the funds in the account. NBA therefore may be subject to double or multiple liability. This satisfies the requirements for an interpleader under Civil Rule 22. [5] Although the requirements of Civil Rule 22 were satisfied, the superior court apparently was of the view that an additional prerequisite must be met before an interpleader action may be filed. The superior court cited Arizona Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 148 Ariz. 136, 713 P.2d 337 (App. 1985), for the proposition that, in order to maintain an interpleader action, the stakeholder must not have incurred independent liability to any claimant. The case cited by the superior court exemplifies the traditional view that there are four requirements for filing an interpleader: 1. The same thing, debt, or duty must be claimed by both or all the parties against whom the relief is demanded; 2. All their adverse titles or claims must be dependent on or be derived from a common source; 3. The person asking the relief  the plaintiff  must not have or claim any interest in the subject-matter; 4. He must have incurred no independent liability to either of the claimants; that is, he must stand perfectly indifferent between them, in the position merely of a stakeholder. 7 Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1701 (2d ed. 1986). Civil Rule 22 expressly eliminates the first three of these requirements. Whether Civil Rule 22 has eliminated the no independent liability requirement is a question of first impression in Alaska, and other courts differ in their treatment of this issue. Wright, supra at § 1706. [6] Wright points out that [c]ontemporary procedure ... is well adapted to disposing of interpleader cases even when independent liability is asserted. Thus, there is no reason today ... for continuing to honor a limitation on the remedy that has no claim to validity other than that it is old. Id. We agree, and join the courts that have held that Civil Rule 22 eliminates the requirement that the stakeholder not be independently liable to a claimant. See Olivier v. Humble Oil & Ref. Co., 225 F. Supp. 536, 539 (E.D.La. 1963).