Rule 22 Interpleader allows a stakeholder to compel all adverse claimants to litigate their claims in a single action.

Rule 22 Interpleader allows a stakeholder to compel all adverse claimants to litigate their claims in a single action.

• A. A stakeholder may compel all adverse claimants to litigate their claims in a single action.
• B. Interpleader requires the stake to be abandoned.
• C. Interpleader can be used only when there is a single claimant.
• D. Interpleader eliminates the need for court intervention.

Answer: (A)

Interpleader focuses on resolving competing claims by bringing all potential claimants into one lawsuit so a neutral stakeholder can determine who is entitled to the stake. The stakeholder who holds money or property and faces multiple adverse claims can file an interpleader, deposit the stake with the court (or be ready to deposit), and compel all claimants to litigate their rights in a single action. This prevents the stakeholder from facing multiple lawsuits and avoids duplicative liability, since the court will decide who gets the stake and discharge the stakeholder from further claims. That is why the statement stating that a stakeholder may compel all adverse claimants to litigate their claims in a single action is the best match. It captures the essence of interpleader—consolidating conflicting claims into one proceeding so the court can determine entitlement. The other options miss the mark: interpleader does not require abandoning the stake (the stake is deposited with the court, not left behind), it is not limited to a single claimant (it exists precisely to handle multiple claimants), and it does require court intervention to resolve the competing claims.

Interpleader focuses on resolving competing claims by bringing all potential claimants into one lawsuit so a neutral stakeholder can determine who is entitled to the stake. The stakeholder who holds money or property and faces multiple adverse claims can file an interpleader, deposit the stake with the court (or be ready to deposit), and compel all claimants to litigate their rights in a single action. This prevents the stakeholder from facing multiple lawsuits and avoids duplicative liability, since the court will decide who gets the stake and discharge the stakeholder from further claims.

That is why the statement stating that a stakeholder may compel all adverse claimants to litigate their claims in a single action is the best match. It captures the essence of interpleader—consolidating conflicting claims into one proceeding so the court can determine entitlement. The other options miss the mark: interpleader does not require abandoning the stake (the stake is deposited with the court, not left behind), it is not limited to a single claimant (it exists precisely to handle multiple claimants), and it does require court intervention to resolve the competing claims.