A. Whenever any person is or may be exposed to multiple liability through the existence of claims by others to the same property or fund held by him or on his behalf, such person may file a pleading and require such parties to interplead their claims. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims 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 he is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant in an action who is exposed to similar liability may likewise obtain such interpleader. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in § 8.01-5.
B. The remedy herein provided is in addition to and in no way supersedes or limits the remedy provided by any other section of this Code.
C. In any action of interpleader, the court may enter its order restraining all claimants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any court of the Commonwealth affecting the property involved in the interpleader action until further order of the court.
Such court shall hear and determine the case and may discharge the appropriate party from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.
D. A person interpleading may voluntarily pay or tender into court the property claimed, or may be ordered to do so by the court; and the court may thereupon order such party discharged from all or part of any liability as between the claimants of such property.
Code 1950, § 8-226; 1977, c. 617; 1978, c. 415.
Notes of Decisions
Kepley Broscious, PLC v. Ahearn (In Re Ahearn), 318 B.R. 638 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2003).
· cites it 2× “This adversary proceeding was filed initially on January 13, 2003, as a Bill of Interpleader (under Virginia Code § 8.01-364) in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia (styled Kepley Broscious, PLC v.”
Cnty. of Henrico v. Ehlers, 379 S.E.2d 457 (Va. 1989).
· cites it 2× “These appeals arise from a single statutory interpleader action instituted by Henrico County (the County), pursuant to Code § 8.01-364. The interpleaded stake consisted of $128,464.”
Jones v. Caldwell, 61 Va. Cir. 408 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Under the present facts, as detailed in paragraph 12 of Defendants’ Motion for Interpleader, the parties, namely the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs attorney, the Plaintiffs former attorney, and the Receiver, all claim that they are entitled to the settlement proceeds.”
Bd. of Supervisors v. Peterson, 19 Va. Cir. 57 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 4× “The legislative history of Section 8.01-364 also supports the idea that an action for interpleader may be allowed despite a petitioner’s independent liability.”
Golden Rule Ins. v. Jarvis, 53 Va. Cir. 393 (Waynesboro Cir. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to the Interpleader Statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364 (1950), Golden Rule sought to be discharged from this action by the court.”
Day v. MCC Acquisition, LC, 299 Va. 199 (2020).
· cites it 6× “3 No 3 Parties to an interpleader action under Code § 8.01-364 may file in personam claims against each other seeking damages for breach of contact.”
Prudential Ins. v. Clark, 48 Va. Cir. 557 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 1999).
“Prudential, upon finding out that an amicable resolution of tire matter could not be reached, promptly filed in this Court its interpleader action under § 8.01-364 of the Code of Virginia. This is a classic case for the application and use of the statutory interpleader action.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Eusufzai, 75 Va. Cir. 1 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 10× “” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364 (A). “A person interpleading may voluntarily pay or tender into court the property claimed, or may be ordered to do so by the court; and the court may thereupon order such party discharged from all or part of any liability as between the claimants of…”
Babyak v. Watts, 19 Va. Cir. 196 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 11× “Va. Code § 8.01-364. The section is not intended to limit the remedies provided by any other code provisions.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364(A): 2 cases
Day v. MCC Acquisition, LC, 299 Va. 199 (2020).
“3 No 3 Parties to an interpleader action under Code § 8.01-364 may file in personam claims against each other seeking damages for breach of contact.”
Babyak v. Watts, 19 Va. Cir. 196 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).
“Va. Code § 8.01-364. The section is not intended to limit the remedies provided by any other code provisions.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364(B): 1 case
Babyak v. Watts, 19 Va. Cir. 196 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).
“Va. Code § 8.01-364. The section is not intended to limit the remedies provided by any other code provisions.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364(C): 3 cases
Jones v. Caldwell, 61 Va. Cir. 408 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2003).
“Under the present facts, as detailed in paragraph 12 of Defendants’ Motion for Interpleader, the parties, namely the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs attorney, the Plaintiffs former attorney, and the Receiver, all claim that they are entitled to the settlement proceeds.”
Bd. of Supervisors v. Peterson, 19 Va. Cir. 57 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989).
“The legislative history of Section 8.01-364 also supports the idea that an action for interpleader may be allowed despite a petitioner’s independent liability.”
Day v. MCC Acquisition, LC, 299 Va. 199 (2020).
“3 No 3 Parties to an interpleader action under Code § 8.01-364 may file in personam claims against each other seeking damages for breach of contact.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-364(D): 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.