Legal Definitions - improper cumulation of actions

Improper Cumulation of Actions

Historically, under the common-law pleading system, improper cumulation of actions referred to the practice of combining two or more legal claims (known as "causes of action") within a single lawsuit that were fundamentally contradictory or logically inconsistent with each other. The strict rules of common-law pleading demanded that a plaintiff's legal arguments be clear and consistent. If claims were inconsistent, it was believed to confuse the issues for the court and the jury, making it difficult to determine the true nature of the dispute or the appropriate legal remedy. While modern legal systems are far more flexible and generally allow parties to plead alternative or even inconsistent claims (as long as they are made in good faith), this historical concept highlights the evolution of legal procedure.

• Example 1: Contradictory Factual Assertions

  Imagine a situation where a plaintiff sues a defendant regarding a contract. In the same lawsuit, the plaintiff attempts to make two claims:

  • First, the plaintiff claims that the defendant never signed the contract, rendering it invalid and unenforceable.
  • Second, the plaintiff simultaneously claims that the defendant signed the contract but then breached its terms, causing financial harm.

  Under the common-law system, these would be considered an improper cumulation of actions because the factual premises are mutually exclusive. If the contract was never signed, it cannot have been breached by the defendant. Conversely, if it was signed and breached, it cannot simultaneously be invalid due to a lack of signature. Historically, a plaintiff would have been required to choose one consistent theory.

• Example 2: Inconsistent Legal Theories for the Same Event

  Consider a plaintiff suing a neighbor for damage to their property. The plaintiff attempts to bring two claims in one proceeding:

  • First, the plaintiff alleges that the neighbor intentionally and maliciously trespassed onto their land and destroyed a valuable garden (an intentional tort).
  • Second, the plaintiff simultaneously alleges that the neighbor negligently allowed their livestock to wander onto the plaintiff's land due to a poorly maintained fence, resulting in the same garden damage (a claim of negligence).

  Historically, these claims might have been deemed an improper cumulation. While both seek compensation for garden damage, they rest on fundamentally different legal theories requiring different states of mind (intentional vs. negligent) and different types of proof. The common law often struggled with combining such distinct legal bases in a single action.

• Example 3: Claiming Ownership Versus Claiming Payment for Sale

  Suppose a plaintiff is involved in a dispute over a unique antique vase with a defendant. The plaintiff attempts to pursue two claims in the same lawsuit:

  • First, the plaintiff asserts that they are the rightful owner of the vase and demands its immediate return from the defendant.
  • Second, the plaintiff simultaneously asserts that they sold the vase to the defendant and are now demanding payment of the agreed-upon purchase price.

  These claims represent an improper cumulation of actions. If the plaintiff is the rightful owner and demanding its return, they cannot simultaneously claim to have sold it and be owed money for the sale. The legal positions are contradictory: one assumes ownership, the other assumes a completed transfer of ownership. Historically, a plaintiff would have had to choose which legal theory to pursue.