transaction or occurrence test

transaction or occurrence test

Fed.R.Civil P. 13(a) provides that a claim qualifies as a compulsory counterclaim if it arises out of the "transaction or occurrence" that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. Courts generally have agreed that these words should be interpreted liberally in order to further the general policies of the federal rules which are to avoid multiple suits and to encourage the determination of the entire controversy among the parties. Thus, the "transaction" test does not require the court to differentiate between opposing legal and equitable claims or between claims in tort and those in contract. Most courts, rather than attempting to define the key terms of Rule 13(a) precisely, have preferred to suggest standards by which the compulsory or permissive nature of specific counterclaims can be determined. Four tests have been suggested:

(1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same?

(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?

(3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendant's counterclaim?

(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? Old Homestead Co. v. Continental Baking Co., 47 F.R.D. 560, 563.

See counterclaim (compulsory counterclaim).

Cross-claims.

Most courts have held that the above standards used for dealing with the "transaction or occurrence" test for compulsory counterclaims also apply to cross-claims under Fed.R.Civil P. 13(g). Old Homestead Co. v. Continental Baking Co., 47 F.R.D. 560, 563.

See cross-claim