Joinder of claims and remedies

(a) Joinder of claims. A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims either legal or equitable, or both, as the party has against an opposing party. (b) Joinder of remedies: Fraudulent conveyances. Whenever a claim is one heretofore cognizable only after another claim has been prosecuted to a conclusion, the two claims may be joined in a single action; but the court shall grant relief in that action only in accordance with the relative substantive rights of the parties. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to have set aside a conveyance fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first having obtained a judgment establishing the claim for money. (c) Liability insurance coverage. In no event shall this or any other rule be construed to permit a jury trial of a liability insurance coverage question jointly with the trial of a related damage claim against an insured. (dc) District court rule. Rule 18 applies in the district courts, except that (1) in Rule 18(a) the provision for joinder of legal or equitable claims is limited to the joinder of claims which come within the jurisdiction of the district courts, (2) Rule 18(b) applies in the district courts only within the limits of the jurisdiction of the district courts, and (3) Rule 18(c) is deleted. [Amended 5-16-83, eff. 7-1-83; Amended eff. 10-1-95.] Committee Comments It has not hitherto been possible to join tort and contract claims, save where they arose out of the same transaction or related to the same subject matter. Code of Ala., Tit. 7, § 220; cf. Equity Rule 15. This limitation, which is irrelevant to the question of what actions may be conveniently tried together, is abolished. Rule 18(a) removes all such limitations. Where there is but one plaintiff and one defendant, there can be no misjoinder of claims. Atlantic Lumber Corp. v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 F.R.D. 313 (D.Or.1941). Nor can there be misjoinder of claims where multiple parties are involved if the parties are properly joined under Rules 13, 14, 19, 20 and 22. It is for the court, pursuant to Rule 42(b), to order separate trials as to particular claims or issues as will best serve convenience and avoid prejudice. As to the effect of venue requirements on joinder of claims, see Rule 82(c). Rule 18(b) is inserted to make it clear that in a single action a party should be accorded all the relief to which he is entitled regardless of whether it is legal or equitable or both. In respect to fraudulent conveyances the rule conforms to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, §§ 9 and 10. See McLaughlin, Application of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 404, 444 (1933). Rule 18(a) is comparable to Federal Rule 18(a) which was rewritten in 1966, not to make any basic change but to clarify language which had been the basis of restrictive construction. According to U.S.S.Ct. Advisory Committee, “the rules proceed on the theory that no inconvenience can result from the joinder of any two or more matters in the pleadings, but only from trying two or more matters together.” Federal Rule 18(a) as it formerly stood contains reference to Rules 19, 20 and 22. This language in the Rule dealing only with joinder of claims and remedies was the basis for a line of cases making the rule, in its operation, subordinate and subject to the requirements of Rule 20 dealing with joinder of parties. The progenitor of this line of cases was Federal Housing Adm’r v. Christianson, 26 F.Supp. 419 (D.Conn.1939), a case which has been suggested to be an incorrect construction of the Rule as it was originally written. See Wright, Federal Courts, p. 344 (2d Ed.1970). This construction was given credibility by the language of Rule 20(a) wherein the ambiguous word “them” was used. These cases construed the word “them” in Rule 20 to mean “claims” and, hence, found that Rule 20 spoke to claims as well as parties. The result was the incorporation by reference of Rule 20 requirements for parties upon Rule 18 requirements for claims. Since Rule 20 requirements were narrower, Rule 18 became more restricted than it would have been had Rule 20 never been carried in by reference.