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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004 (2026)

Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors

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

A. A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation under any of the following:

1. With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor.

2. Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either:

(a) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction.

(b) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.

B. In determining actual intent under subsection A, paragraph 1, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:

1. The transfer or obligation was to an insider.

2. The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer.

3. The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed.

4. Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit.

5. The transfer was of substantially all of the debtor's assets.

6. The debtor absconded.

7. The debtor removed or concealed assets.

8. The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred.

9. The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

10. The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.

11. The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 22× “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer or obligation was or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been…”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “It is not the transaction itself, but rather the purpose behind the transaction, that brings a transfer under the scrutiny of A.R.S. § 44-1004. ¶ 21 Moreover, appellants misstate the law in asserting that a transaction can only be fraudulent if not given for reasonable value,…”
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill, 960 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “A.R.S. § 44-1004. No further evidence of the common law elements of fraud are needed once actual intent is shown.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “§§ 44-1004, 44-1006, and 44-1003. Finally, the Act enumerates available defenses, states the kinds of transferees against whom a creditor may obtain judgment, and adopts a statute of limitations expressly tailored for fraudulent transfers.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 3× “section 44-1004(A)(1), and constructively fraudulent transfers, A.”
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “” 11 A.R.S. § 44-1004(A). Wife’s claims are, therefore, claims of a creditor protected by the Act.”
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 44-1004(A), -1007(A). In this ease, the Rogones properly sued John as a transferee against whose property they sought a remedy.”
Premier Fin. Servs.. v. Citibank, 912 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “”) section 44-1004 by clear and satisfactory evidence.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× ““A transfer or obligation is not voidable under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 3 against a person who took in good-faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.”
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1) (noting that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when it is made with intent to “hinder, delay or defraud any creditor”).”
Transamerica Ins. v. Trout, 701 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Transamerica served a writ of garnishment on Trout on March 9, 1978, alleging that the conveyance to Trout had been fraudulent under A.R.S. § 44-1004, and attempting to recover $55,000 from Trout.”
Show all 74 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(13) — 1 case
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer or obligation was or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(A) — 18 cases
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “See A.R.S. §§ 44-1004(A), -1007(A). In this ease, the Rogones properly sued John as a transferee against whose property they sought a remedy.”
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “” 11 A.R.S. § 44-1004(A). Wife’s claims are, therefore, claims of a creditor protected by the Act.”
Dooley Corvallas Dev. Corp. v. O'Brien, 244 P.3d 586 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
SPQR Venture, Inc. v. Robertson, 349 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Shah v. Baloch, 418 P.3d 902 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(A)(1) — 22 cases
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer or obligation was or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been…”
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “section 44-1004(A)(1), and constructively fraudulent transfers, A.”
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). “See A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1) (noting that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor when it is made with intent to “hinder, delay or defraud any creditor”).”
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “” 11 A.R.S. § 44-1004(A). Wife’s claims are, therefore, claims of a creditor protected by the Act.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(A)(2) — 9 cases
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer or obligation was or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been…”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “It is not the transaction itself, but rather the purpose behind the transaction, that brings a transfer under the scrutiny of A.R.S. § 44-1004. ¶ 21 Moreover, appellants misstate the law in asserting that a transaction can only be fraudulent if not given for reasonable value,…”
Hashimoto v. Clark, 264 B.R. 585 (D. Ariz. 2001).
Smith v. Olsen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
Castillo v. Johnson (D. Ariz. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(A)(2)(a) — 1 case
Downs v. Anderson (D. Ariz. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(A)(l) — 6 cases
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer or obligation was or through the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been…”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “It is not the transaction itself, but rather the purpose behind the transaction, that brings a transfer under the scrutiny of A.R.S. § 44-1004. ¶ 21 Moreover, appellants misstate the law in asserting that a transaction can only be fraudulent if not given for reasonable value,…”
Marriage of Gerow v. Covill, 960 P.2d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “A.R.S. § 44-1004. No further evidence of the common law elements of fraud are needed once actual intent is shown.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “section 44-1004(A)(1), and constructively fraudulent transfers, A.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). ““A transfer or obligation is not voidable under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 3 against a person who took in good-faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B) — 13 cases
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “It is not the transaction itself, but rather the purpose behind the transaction, that brings a transfer under the scrutiny of A.R.S. § 44-1004. ¶ 21 Moreover, appellants misstate the law in asserting that a transaction can only be fraudulent if not given for reasonable value,…”
Hashimoto v. Clark, 264 B.R. 585 (D. Ariz. 2001).
SPQR Venture, Inc. v. Robertson, 349 P.3d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(1) — 8 cases
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
Nextgear v. Owens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Ghb v. Solomon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
Ocean Garden Prods. Inc. v. Blessings Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
Castillo v. Johnson (D. Ariz. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(2) — 2 cases
Ocean Garden Prods. Inc. v. Blessings Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(3) — 3 cases
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “” 11 A.R.S. § 44-1004(A). Wife’s claims are, therefore, claims of a creditor protected by the Act.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(4) — 2 cases
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
Ocean Garden Prods. Inc. v. Blessings Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(5) — 3 cases
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
Nextgear v. Owens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(7) — 2 cases
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1). The UFTA identifies eleven specific factors that may be considered (among other factors) in determining “actual intent.”
Castillo v. Johnson (D. Ariz. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(8) — 1 case
Ocean Garden Prods. Inc. v. Blessings Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(9) — 1 case
Nikola Corp. v. Milton (D. Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1004(B)(l) — 2 cases
Premier Fin. Servs.. v. Citibank, 912 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “”) section 44-1004 by clear and satisfactory evidence.”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
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.