Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1005 (2026)
Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case: Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003).
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “2002) with A.R.S. § 44-1005. The Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Laws Annotated’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act also define the key terms “insolvent,” “debt,” and “claim” similarly.”
Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “As a part of this stock-sale transaction, a substantial part of the assets of Valley Distributors had been transferred directly to the Jenkins. Spanier’s claim against the Jenkins was based in part upon the theory that this transfer of corporate assets to Jenkins constituted a…”
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 2 or § 44-1005, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
Gaughan v. Cavan (In Re Strasser), 303 B.R. 841 (D. Ariz. 2004). “A.R.S. § 44-1005 (1990). Defendants do not dispute that debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer of the sale proceeds.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “The court implicitly concluded that Suncrest therefore “received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer” within A.R.S. § 44-1005. Here, again, we conclude that the statutes require a different result.”
Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C., 121 P.3d 181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 13 We note that, in an action pursuant to § 44-1005, proof of intent does not appear to be required; instead, the plaintiff must merely prove the circumstances listed in the statute.”
Mann Ex Rel. Est. of LeapSource, Inc. v. GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, 483 F. Supp. 2d 884 (D. Ariz. 2007). “” A.R.S. § 44-1005 (2003). 23 . Defendant Makings, the transferee, is also named in this count, but as mentioned at the outset, he has separately moved for summary judgment.”
State v. Fendler, 622 P.2d 17 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “See, § 44-1005, A.C.A. 1939. [6] In 1956, the Arizona Supreme Court adopted a new series of Criminal Rules.”
Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Under § 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 2 or § 44-1005, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
In Re Marriage of Benge, 726 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 44-1004 because he was not really insolvent, or A.R.S. § 44-1005, because this is a domestic and not a business transaction.”
State v. Polan, 278 P.2d 432 (Ariz. 1954). “, Section 44-1005, A.C.A. 1939, which enumerates the grounds for a motion to quash, indicates that neither of the above grounds is within the provision.”
State v. King, 182 P.2d 915 (Ariz. 1947). “) That this is the meaning of section 44-1013 is conclusively indicated by the next section, 44-1014, which reads as follows: “An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1005(1) — 1 case
State v. Phelps, 193 P.2d 921 (Ariz. 1948).
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.