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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007 (2026)

Remedies of creditors

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

A. In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under this article, a creditor, subject to the limitations in sections 44-1008 and 44-1009, may obtain one or more of the following remedies:

1. Garnishment against the fraudulent transferee or the recipient of the fraudulent obligation, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in obtaining such remedy.

2. Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim.

3. An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law in obtaining such remedy.

4. Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure:

(a) An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property.

(b) Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee.

(c) Any other relief the circumstances may require.

B. Subject to the limitations in sections 44-1008 and 44-1009, if a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor, if the court so orders, may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 11× “See A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2) (providing for the avoidance of a transfer “to the extent necessary to satisfy [a] creditor’s claim”).”
Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 44-1007. b. The Cases ¶ 12 The Ulans argue it “defies logic” to contend, as the Moores do, that Arizona does not recognize a common law cause of action for fraudulent conveyance.”
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “The Rogones argue that A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2) supports the additional language.”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2); Heinig v. Hudman, 177 Ariz.”
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, 195 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 44-1007(A). The enumerated remedies allow “[garnishment against the transferee, [a]voidance of the fraudulent transfer, ____attachment .”
Backman v. Backman, 621 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 11× “§ 12-543(3), did not bar appellee’s action to set aside the appellants’ conveyance of real property as a fraudulent conveyance, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 44-1007 and 44-1009. 1 *416 The .”
Linder v. Lewis, Roca, Scoville & Beauchamp, 333 P.2d 286 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 44-1007 of the Arizona Fraudulent Conveyance Act provides: “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…”
Pearce v. Stone, 720 P.2d 542 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “If Pearce failed to make a requisite showing regarding each and every element, summary judgment was proper, a) Evidence of a Fraudulent Conveyance 2 Pearce contends that the transfers of the residence to and from the trust and the encumbering of the residence constitute…”
Mann Ex Rel. Est. of LeapSource, Inc. v. GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, 483 F. Supp. 2d 884 (D. Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(4)(c) (2003). Faced with the argu *919 ment that this catch-all provision permits a claim for aiding and abetting under the UFTA, however, courts have uniformly rejected it as a matter of statutory construction.”
In Re Marriage of Benge, 726 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “He then contends that A.R.S. § 44-1007 is inapplicable because the evidence does not show actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.”
Premier Fin. Servs.. v. Citibank, 912 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “section 44-1007(A)(l). That statute allows garnishment to be employed against a fraudulent transferee or the recipient of a fraudulent obligation.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “In a garnishment proceeding, the superior court, “sitting without a jury, shall decide all issues of fact and law.” A.R.S. § 12-1584(E). Additionally, UFTA specifically provides for garnishment as a remedy and states that the garnishment remedy be “in accordance with the…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(2) — 1 case
Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown (D. Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(A) — 2 cases
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, 195 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “A.R.S. § 44-1007(A). The enumerated remedies allow “[garnishment against the transferee, [a]voidance of the fraudulent transfer, ____attachment .”
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(A)(1) — 3 cases
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “In a garnishment proceeding, the superior court, “sitting without a jury, shall decide all issues of fact and law.” A.R.S. § 12-1584(E). Additionally, UFTA specifically provides for garnishment as a remedy and states that the garnishment remedy be “in accordance with the…”
Awb v. Kellin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Nextgear v. Owens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(A)(2) — 5 cases
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). “See A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2) (providing for the avoidance of a transfer “to the extent necessary to satisfy [a] creditor’s claim”).”
Rogone v. Correia, 335 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The Rogones argue that A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2) supports the additional language.”
State Ex Rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Wright, 43 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2); Heinig v. Hudman, 177 Ariz.”
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).
Awb v. Kellin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(A)(4)(c) — 2 cases
Mann Ex Rel. Est. of LeapSource, Inc. v. GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, 483 F. Supp. 2d 884 (D. Ariz. 2007). “” A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(4)(c) (2003). Faced with the argu *919 ment that this catch-all provision permits a claim for aiding and abetting under the UFTA, however, courts have uniformly rejected it as a matter of statutory construction.”
Demand v. Minderman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(A)(l) — 1 case
Premier Fin. Servs.. v. Citibank, 912 P.2d 1309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “section 44-1007(A)(l). That statute allows garnishment to be employed against a fraudulent transferee or the recipient of a fraudulent obligation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1007(B) — 1 case
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp., 170 P.3d 250 (Ariz. 2007). “See A.R.S. § 44-1007(A)(2) (providing for the avoidance of a transfer “to the extent necessary to satisfy [a] creditor’s claim”).”
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.