A. A transfer or obligation is not voidable under section 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 1 against a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.
B. Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor under section 44-1007, subsection A, paragraph 1, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under subsection C of this section, or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against either:
1. The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made.
2. Any subsequent transferee other than a good faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee.
C. If the judgment under subsection B of this section is based on the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.
D. Notwithstanding voidability of a transfer or an obligation under this article, a good faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to any of the following:
1. A lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred.
2. Enforcement of any obligation incurred.
3. A reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.
E. A transfer is not voidable under section 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 2 or section 44-1005 if the transfer results from:
1. Termination of a lease on default by the debtor if the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law.
2. Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with title 47, chapter 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case:
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006).
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 6× “2002) (citing A.R.S. §§ 44-1008 and 44-1009). A.R.S. § 44-1009 (West 2003), provides, in relevant part.”
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, 195 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “¶ 53 A common component of laws relating to fraudulent or preferential transfers is that liability is limited to the value of the assets transferred. For example, under the UFTA if a transfer is not voidable because the assets have been depreciated or sold “the creditor may…”
Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “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.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “section 44-1008. None of the recorded documents reasonably disclose a fraudulent intent by Milton.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-1008(A); In re Viscount Air Seros.”
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Although a transfer is not void against a person acting in good faith who gives reasonably equivalent value, A.R.S. § 44-1008(A), Fioramonti presented no evidence to characterize herself as such a person.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 5 We need not reach whether the Assignment was made for reasonably equivalent value; for XYZED to avail itself of the defense under A.R.S. § 44-1008, it must have taken the Assignment “in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
Retzke v. Larson, 803 P.2d 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 5× “See A.R.S. § 44-1008. The term used in the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act is “conveyance,” which includes every payment of money, assignment, release, transfer, lease, mortgage or pledge of property, as well as the creation of any lien.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 12 An alleged lack of notice to the debtor about an existing, unasserted claim may be relevant to the defense provided by § 44-1008(A)(1) for transfers to “a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
Ocean Garden Prods. Inc. v. Blessings Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 44-1008(B). The judgment may be entered against the 26 “transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made.”
Samra v. Patel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 44-1008(A). Clear and satisfactory evidence is required to prove a fraudulent transfer.”
Samra v. Patel (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 44-1008(A). Clear and satisfactory evidence is required to prove a fraudulent transfer.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(A) — 8 cases
Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006).
“2002) (citing A.R.S. §§ 44-1008 and 44-1009). A.R.S. § 44-1009 (West 2003), provides, in relevant part.”
Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003).
“See A.R.S. § 44-1008(A); In re Viscount Air Seros.”
Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“Although a transfer is not void against a person acting in good faith who gives reasonably equivalent value, A.R.S. § 44-1008(A), Fioramonti presented no evidence to characterize herself as such a person.”
Carey v. Soucy, 431 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA 5 We need not reach whether the Assignment was made for reasonably equivalent value; for XYZED to avail itself of the defense under A.R.S. § 44-1008, it must have taken the Assignment “in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“section 44-1008. None of the recorded documents reasonably disclose a fraudulent intent by Milton.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(A)(1) — 1 case
Hullett v. Cousin, 32 P.3d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 12 An alleged lack of notice to the debtor about an existing, unasserted claim may be relevant to the defense provided by § 44-1008(A)(1) for transfers to “a person who took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(B) — 5 cases
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins, 195 P.3d 645 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“¶ 53 A common component of laws relating to fraudulent or preferential transfers is that liability is limited to the value of the assets transferred. For example, under the UFTA if a transfer is not voidable because the assets have been depreciated or sold “the creditor may…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(B)(1) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1008(D)(1) — 1 case
Hall v. World Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 943 P.2d 855 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“section 44-1008. None of the recorded documents reasonably disclose a fraudulent intent by Milton.”
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.