Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Asset" means property of a debtor, but asset does not include any of the following:

(a) Property to the extent it is encumbered by a valid lien.

(b) Property to the extent it is generally exempt under nonbankruptcy law.

(c) An interest in property held in tenancy by the entireties to the extent it is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one tenant.

2. "Claim" means a right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured.

3. "Creditor" means a person who has a claim.

4. "Debt" means liability on a claim.

5. "Debtor" means a person who is liable on a claim.

6. "Lien" means a charge against or an interest in property to secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation and includes a security interest created by agreement, a judicial lien obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings, a common law lien or a statutory lien.

7. "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust or any other legal or commercial entity.

8. "Property" means anything that may be the subject of ownership.

9. "Transfer" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset and includes payment of money, release, lease and creation of a lien or other encumbrance.

10. "Valid lien" means a lien that is effective against the holder of a judicial lien subsequently obtained by legal or equitable process or proceedings and that is not subject to avoidance under this article.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16× “Wright’s wages were community property. After a hearing on the matter in superi- or court, the commissioner overruled appellants’ objection to the garnishment, finding that the modification to the premarital agreement was a fraudulent conveyance under the Uniform Fraudulent…”

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 10× “1982) (“The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq., does not create a new claim.”

Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 6× “*2 ¶2 The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has asked us whether a creditor’s action under Arizona’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1001 to -1010 (2003), to void a debtor’s allegedly fraudulent transfer of real…”

Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “In that mo *104 tion, the Moores had asked the judge to dismiss the cause of action for fraudulent transfer filed by real parties in interest Leon Ulan and Sylvia Ulan on the ground the cause of action has been extinguished by the statute of repose in the Uniform Fraudulent…”

Bilke v. State, 80 P.3d 269 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “2003) (granting priority to a perfected security interest in fixtures over a conflicting security interest of an owner of the real property if "[t]he conflicting interest is a lien on the real property obtained by legal or equitable proceedings after the security interest was…”

Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, we also review that finding. ¶ 40 We first address whether Wife is protected by the Arizona fraudulent conveyance statutes.”

Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Moreover, at that time, GWH had no income and no assets other than the three lots in its name. ¶ 4 Kaufinann brought this action against M & S in June 2004, seeking to recover her funds under Arizona’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, A.”

Backman v. Backman, 621 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 10× “§ 44-1007 states: Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.”

Dooley Corvallas Dev. Corp. v. O'Brien, 244 P.3d 586 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “¶ 20 An action for fraudulent conveyance must arise under Arizona’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1001 through -1010, which has displaced similar common law actions.”

ML Servicing Co. v. Coles, 334 P.3d 745 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. § 44-1001 (2013). Additionally, while we have not yet interpreted what constitutes a creditor under § 20-1131, the rule is well settled that an undefined statutory term is given its ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context that a different meaning is…”

McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “We agree with the reasoning of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Dalton v.”

Heinig v. Hudman, 865 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “…superi- or court to set aside George Hudman’s fraudulent conveyance. " ‘[C]reditor' means a person who has a claim." A.R.S. § 44-1001(3) (Supp. 1991).”

Show all 58 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(1)(a) — 1 case

Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(2) — 14 cases

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “1982) (“The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq., does not create a new claim.”

Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). “*2 ¶2 The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has asked us whether a creditor’s action under Arizona’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1001 to -1010 (2003), to void a debtor’s allegedly fraudulent transfer of real…”

Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “Accordingly, we also review that finding. ¶ 40 We first address whether Wife is protected by the Arizona fraudulent conveyance statutes.”

Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).

Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 477 P.2d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(3) — 7 cases

Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “In that mo *104 tion, the Moores had asked the judge to dismiss the cause of action for fraudulent transfer filed by real parties in interest Leon Ulan and Sylvia Ulan on the ground the cause of action has been extinguished by the statute of repose in the Uniform Fraudulent…”

Backman v. Backman, 621 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “§ 44-1007 states: Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future creditors.”

Heinig v. Hudman, 865 P.2d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “…superi- or court to set aside George Hudman’s fraudulent conveyance. " ‘[C]reditor' means a person who has a claim." A.R.S. § 44-1001(3) (Supp. 1991).”

United States v. Ranch Located in Young, Arizona, With All Appurtenances & Improvements Thereon, & Marguerite Lucas Maiello, Claimant-Appellant, 50 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1995).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(4) — 2 cases

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “1982) (“The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq., does not create a new claim.”

Woodward v. Chirco Const. Co., Inc., 687 P.2d 1275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(5) — 1 case

TBS Props. LLC v. United States (D. Ariz. 2022).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(6) — 3 cases

Bilke v. State, 80 P.3d 269 (Ariz. 2003). “2003) (granting priority to a perfected security interest in fixtures over a conflicting security interest of an owner of the real property if "[t]he conflicting interest is a lien on the real property obtained by legal or equitable proceedings after the security interest was…”

Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Moreover, at that time, GWH had no income and no assets other than the three lots in its name. ¶ 4 Kaufinann brought this action against M & S in June 2004, seeking to recover her funds under Arizona’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, A.”

Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(8) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Wright’s wages were community property. After a hearing on the matter in superi- or court, the commissioner overruled appellants’ objection to the garnishment, finding that the modification to the premarital agreement was a fraudulent conveyance under the Uniform Fraudulent…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(9) — 7 cases

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “1982) (“The fraudulent conveyance act, A.R.S. § 44-1001, et seq., does not create a new claim.”

Smith v. Olsen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).

Moirbia v. Bonnett (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(A)(1) — 1 case

Nikola Corp. v. Milton (D. Ariz. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1001(B)(1) — 1 case

Nikola Corp. v. Milton (D. Ariz. 2024).

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.