Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1003 (2026)

Value

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise to furnish support to the debtor or another person unless the promise is made in the ordinary course of the promisor's business.

B. For the purposes of section 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 2 and section 44-1005, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of the interest of the debtor on default under a mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement.

C. A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1948–2005 · leading case: Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 3× “section 44-1005 requires both insolvency and a transfer not for value.”
Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “The term “fair consideration” as used in the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and pertinent to this appeal, is defined in A.R.S. § 44-1003 as follows: “Fair consideration is given for property, or obligation: Í.”
Nat'l Indus., Inc., a Kentucky Corp. v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., a Texas Corp., 677 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1982). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1003(1). Republic’s debtor, FSLIC, received the property in question from the Goldbergs in exchange for a note that Republic characterizes as a “surplus” note under the Arizona Insurance Code.”
Hay v. Duskin, 455 P.2d 281 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “” The requirement of A.R.S. § 44-1003 that transfers be in “good faith” takes on critical significance when an executory promise is the “present advance” for obtaining the debtor’s property.”
Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Valley Nat'l Bank, 477 P.2d 550 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-1003 (2). Given the circumstances of this case, particularly where the bank was undertaking to obtain an obligation from West-Coast of $47,500, we believe that as a matter of law the $11,000 antecedent debt of the corporation was disproportionately small as compared…”
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Whether a partnership’s transfer to limited partners “satisfied” “an antecedent debt” owed to them by the partnership under § 44-1003(A) and thereby caused the partnership to “receive[ ] a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer” under § 44-1005.”
State v. Phelps, 193 P.2d 921 (Ariz. 1948). “The validity of the complaint was challenged by a motion to quash, which is authorized by section 44-1003, A.C.A.1939. A motion to quash an indictment or information is available on numerous grounds.”
Dunahay v. Struzik, 393 P.2d 930 (Ariz. 1964). · cites it 2× “For the assignment of the contract she received a fair consideration, the apartment house, A.R.S. § 44-1003. The assignment of the contract was not in fraud of creditors, A.”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “However, under § 44-1003(0), that transfer was not “made for present value” because the exchange between GWH and M & S was not “intended by them to be contemporaneous and [was not] in fact substantially contemporaneous.”
Willoughby v. King, 522 P.2d 54 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1003, insofar as pertinent here, provides that fair consideration is given, “When in exchange for such property .”
Nutter v. Comm'r, 54 T.C. 290 (Tax Ct. 1970). “When in exchange for such property, or obligation, as a fair equivalent therefor, and in good faith, property is conveyed or an antecedent debt is satisfied, or We consider first the question whether petitioners gave "fair consideration" for the property transferred to them.”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “However, under § 44-1003(C), that transfer was not “made for present value” because the exchange between GWH and M & S was not “intended by them to be contemporaneous and [was not] in fact substantially contemporaneous.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1003(0) — 1 case
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “However, under § 44-1003(0), that transfer was not “made for present value” because the exchange between GWH and M & S was not “intended by them to be contemporaneous and [was not] in fact substantially contemporaneous.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1003(1) — 1 case
Nat'l Indus., Inc., a Kentucky Corp. v. Repub. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., a Texas Corp., 677 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1982). “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 44-1003(1). Republic’s debtor, FSLIC, received the property in question from the Goldbergs in exchange for a note that Republic characterizes as a “surplus” note under the Arizona Insurance Code.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1003(A) — 2 cases
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “section 44-1005 requires both insolvency and a transfer not for value.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Whether a partnership’s transfer to limited partners “satisfied” “an antecedent debt” owed to them by the partnership under § 44-1003(A) and thereby caused the partnership to “receive[ ] a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer” under § 44-1005.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1003(C) — 1 case
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “However, under § 44-1003(C), that transfer was not “made for present value” because the exchange between GWH and M & S was not “intended by them to be contemporaneous and [was not] in fact substantially contemporaneous.”
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.