Spanish term (edited): intervencion adhesiva litisconsorcial (civ.)

Interpleader - not impleader which is crim. only in GB: the stakeholder interpleader drops out of the picture and lets the two parties fight it out.

In my understanding, this is not "participation as joint litigant (defendant or plaintiff), which rather would appear to correspond to "intervención adhesiva simple" in which the intervenor joins the position of one of the parties: as you define it above "no defiende un derecho propio, sino que sostiene o sustenta la posición de una de las partes del proceso", or as Black's Law Dictionary describes it, "joins the plaintiff/defendant in claiming what is sought.

In other respects in "intervention adhesiva litisconsorcial" the intervenor "defiende derechos propios." For that reason I have offered Black's definition of "taking a position adverse to both plaintiff and defendant", but I know this is a definition rather than a translation.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2006-05-22 17:59:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

To address John's "disagree", there are two definitions above, and I think it is important to distinguish between intervención adhesiva simple, in which the intevenor joins either the plaintiff or the defendant in his claim/defense, and intervención adhesiva litisconsorcial, in which the intervenor becomes a party to the proceedings in order to defend his own rights. As indicated above, the description of the intervenor "jumping in against both" plaintiff and defendant is not mine, but rather comes from Black's Law Dictionary (8th) p. 840. The entry reads:

Intervention--The entry into a lawsuit by a third party who, despite not being named a party to the action, has a personal stake in the outcome. The intervenor sometimes joins the plaintiff in claiming what is sought, sometimes joins the defendant in resisting what is sought, and sometimes takes a position adverse to both the plaintiff and the defendant."

I believe that the "joining of the plaintiff or defendant" here corresponds to the Spanish concept of "intervention adhesiva simple", while "taking a position adverse to both plaintiff and defendant" (i.e., a position DIFFERENT from both plaintiff and defendant) corresponds to the Spanish concept of "intervención adhesiva litisconsorcial", since here the intervenor intervenes to defend his own rights, which do not necessarily correspond to those of the plaintiff or the defendant. In that regard, if you read Article 13.3 of Spanish Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC 1/2000) governing "intervención" you will see that the intervenor can continue to pursue his own claims even if his "litisconsorte" (either the plaintiff or defendant) ceases to be a party to the proceedings:

13.3. Admitida la intervención, no se retrotraerán las actuaciones, pero el interviniente será considerado parte en el proceso a todos los efectos y podrá defender las pretensiones formuladas por su litisconsorte (INTERVENCIÓN ADHESIVA SIMPLE) o las que el propio interviniente formule (INTERVENCION ADHESIVA LITISCONSORCIAL), si tuviere oportunidad procesal para ello, aunque su litisconsorte renuncie, se allane, desista o se aparte del procedimiento por cualquier otra causa.

So in my reading there are two possibilities, one which you describe as the intervenor who "jumps in on one side or the other" (intervención adhesiva simple) and one in which he "jumps in against both" (litisconsorcio adhesiva litisconsorcial) in the sense that the rights he is defending are his own and do not correspond to those claimed/defended by the plaintiff/defendant.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 15 hrs (2006-05-23 06:53:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In view of Tom's comment, I would like to offer the following observations:

In Spanish civil proceedings the difference between "joinder" (called "litisconsorcio") and "intervention" (called "intervención") is that in "litisconsorcio" the colitigants are parties to the proceeding from its commencement, while "intervenors" enter the already-underway proceeding to protect a right that they feel will be affected by the outcome, or are brought into the proceeding, not having orginally been either a "demandante" or a "demandado" when the complaint was initially filed. In other respects, all intervenors are "third-party intervenors", since that is the definition of intervention ("the entry into a lawsuit by a third party"...). Also, as Tom mentioned, the Spanish categories do not fit GB categories (nor the US categories in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), but it appears that "interpleader" is fairly close to the type of "intervención" in Spain called "intervención provocada" (formerly "intervención forzosa") in which the plaintiff/claimant or defendant (or sometimes the Court) brings a third party into the proceedings. In Spain "intervención" is either "voluntaria" (when a third party voluntarily joins the proceeding) or "provocada" (when a third party is brought into a proceeding--"interpleaded"). "Interpleading" is sometimes called "llamada al proceso."

Víctor Moreno Catena "Derecho Procesal Civil, Parte General" Valencia: Editorial Tirant Lo Blanch (2nd ed.), 2005)