Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009 (2026)

Extinguishment of claim for relief

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A claim for relief with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under this article is extinguished unless an action is brought:

1. Under section 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 discovered by the claimant.

2. Under section 44-1004, subsection A, paragraph 2 or section 44-1005, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · leading case: Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moore v. Browning, 50 P.3d 852 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “See § 44-1009. The respondent judge denied the motion, concluding that the statutory period does not begin until judgment is entered on the underlying debt.”

Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). · cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 44-1009 (West 2003), provides, in relevant part.”

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1009(2). Also, a claim that forms the basis of the fraudulent transfer allegation brought under A.”

McElhanon v. Hing, 728 P.2d 256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “The UFCA’s remedies are set forth in A.R.S. § 44-1009 and in essence provide alternative rights: (1) The creditor may have the conveyance set aside, or (2) The creditor may disregard the conveyance and execute on or garnish the property in the hands of the fraudulent transferee.”

Nat'l Auto Serv. Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC, 192 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1009 (1) (2015) (providing that a fraudulent transfer action is extinguished unless brought within four years of the transfer or "within one year after the fraudulent nature of the transfer .”

Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 44-1009(1). Fioramonti did not timely raise a statute of limitations defense in the superior court.”

Pearce v. Stone, 720 P.2d 542 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “d) Inadequacy of Remedies Under the UFCA Stone contends that he cannot be sued for damages because Pearce’s remedies are limited to those found in the UFCA, § 44-1009. Under § 44-1009, a party injured by a fraudulent conveyance may: (1) Have the conveyance set aside or…”

Spanier v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 623 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Spanier’s claim against the Jenkins was based in part upon the theory that this transfer of corporate assets to Jenkins constituted a fraudulent conveyance in violation of A.R.S. § 44-1005 (Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, § 5), and that as a subsequent creditor injured by the…”

Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash. 2d 816 (Wash. 1997). “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1009 (1) (West 1994) (emphasis added).”

Backman v. Backman, 621 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “§ 44-1009. A. Where a conveyance or obligation is fraudulent as to a creditor, such creditor, when his claim has matured, may, as against any person except a purchaser for fair consideration without knowledge of the fraud at the time of the purchase, or one who has derived title…”

Finn v. All. Bank, 838 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 44-1009 (2013); Cal.”

Sackin v. Kersting, 466 P.2d 758 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “” Because the conveyances were fraudulent, Kersting was specifically authorized to proceed under A.R.S. § 44-1009: “A. Where a conveyance or obligation is fraudulent as to a creditor, such creditor, when his claim has matured, may * * *.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009(1) — 1 case

Mezey v. Fioramonti, 65 P.3d 980 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “” A.R.S. § 44-1009(1). Fioramonti did not timely raise a statute of limitations defense in the superior court.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009(2) — 1 case

Hullett v. Cousin, 63 P.3d 1029 (Ariz. 2003). “” A.R.S. § 44-1009(2). Also, a claim that forms the basis of the fraudulent transfer allegation brought under A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009(A)(1) — 3 cases

Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “A.R.S. § 44-1009 (West 2003), provides, in relevant part.”

Backman v. Backman, 621 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “§ 44-1009. A. Where a conveyance or obligation is fraudulent as to a creditor, such creditor, when his claim has matured, may, as against any person except a purchaser for fair consideration without knowledge of the fraud at the time of the purchase, or one who has derived title…”

Ghb v. Solomon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009(A)(2) — 1 case

Ghb v. Solomon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1009(A)(l) — 1 case

Warfield v. Alaniz, 453 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D. Ariz. 2006). “A.R.S. § 44-1009 (West 2003), provides, in relevant part.”

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.