Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17 (2026)
Remedies of creditor
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 17. (a) In an action for relief against a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 18 of this chapter, may obtain any of the following:
(1) Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim.
(2) An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by IC 34-25-2-1 or any other applicable statute providing for attachment or other provisional remedy against debtors generally.
(3) Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure, any of the following:
(A) An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred, its proceeds, or of other property.
(B) Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of the property of the transferee.
(C) Any other relief the circumstances require.
(b) If a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor, if the court orders, may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-2-7-17.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Four Seasons Mfg., Inc. v. 1001 Coliseum, LLC, 870 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Four Seasons Mfg., Inc. v. 1001 Coliseum, LLC, 870 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “I.C. § 32-18-2-17. At trial, Coliseum argued that FSM was liable pursuant to the UFTA.”
Rose v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank of Hammond, 844 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17 provides in pertinent part: (a) In an action for relief against a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 18 of this chapter, may obtain any of the following: (1) Avoidance of the transfer or…”
Lei Shi v. Cecilia Yi, 921 N.E.2d 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Such issues of fraudulent grantees are adequately addressed in the IUFTA under Ind. Code §§ 32-18-2-17 ,-18. 8 . Count I of Shi's reads: COUNT I COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY Comes now the Plaintiff, by counsel, and of the Defendants, Cecilia Yi,…”
Hoesman v. Sheffler, 886 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “However, nothing under Indiana Code chapter 32-18-2 indicates that a debtor is a mandatory party, and Indiana Code section 32-18-2-17 implicitly indicates that a debtor is not a necessary party.”
Deborah Klein v. Douglas Weidner, 729 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2013). “at 354 (citing Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17(c)). As the Missouri Court of Appeal noted in Volk, “[t]his language does not evidence an intent to prohibit punitive damage awards,” and it instead “expressly grants courts the authority to employ the full array of remedial measures insofar…”
The Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Bonnie M. Lockwood, 315 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2002). “740 ILCS 160/8; Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17. The district court granted summary judgment for Nostalgia on the ground that Rayle had committed constructive fraud (“fraud in law” as it is termed in the UFTA), and Lockwood appeals.”
Weintraut v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 142 (Tax Ct. 2016). “32-18-2-17(a)(1) . If a transfer is voidable under Ind.”
Vukadinovich v. Posner (N.D. Ind. 2023). “” Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17 (a)(2).3 The current complaint does not assert any claim under the Act.”
In Re Rose, 585 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2009). “On November 16, 2002, Mercantile filed two claims under the Indiana Fraudulent Transfer Act, Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17, alleging that Rose, Underwood, J-N and WSCI had acted fraudulently by transferring Rose's and Underwood's shares in J-N to WSCI in order to avoid paying the…”
State of Indiana ex rel. Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney Gen. of Indiana v. Larry Lawson, Angela M. Lawson aka Angie M. Lawson, 128 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17 . As relevant here, a conveyance is fraudulent and voidable if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor of the debtor.”
Mercantile Nat'l Bank v. Rose, 585 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2009). “On November 16, 2002, Mercantile filed two claims under the Indiana Fraudulent Transfer Act, Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17, alleging that Rose, Underwood, J-N and WSCI had acted fraudulently by transferring Rose’s and Underwood’s shares in J-N to WSCI in order to avoid paying the…”
Bmo Harris Bank, N.A. v. John J. Petr, Tr. for Bwgs, LLC (S.D. Ind. 2023). “Code § 32-18-2-14 (titled "Transfers voidable as to present and future creditors" and discussing when a transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor "is voidable as to a creditor"); Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17 (titled "Remedies of creditors" and discussing when a creditor may…”
— Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17(a) — 1 case
Rose v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank of Hammond, 844 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17 provides in pertinent part: (a) In an action for relief against a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 18 of this chapter, may obtain any of the following: (1) Avoidance of the transfer or…”
— Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17(a)(1) — 2 cases
Rose v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank of Hammond, 844 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17 provides in pertinent part: (a) In an action for relief against a transfer or an obligation under this chapter, a creditor, subject to the limitations in section 18 of this chapter, may obtain any of the following: (1) Avoidance of the transfer or…”
State of Indiana ex rel. Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney Gen. of Indiana v. Larry Lawson, Angela M. Lawson aka Angie M. Lawson, 128 N.E.3d 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17 . As relevant here, a conveyance is fraudulent and voidable if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor of the debtor.”
— Ind. Code § 32-18-2-17(c) — 1 case
Deborah Klein v. Douglas Weidner, 729 F.3d 280 (3rd Cir. 2013). “at 354 (citing Ind.Code § 32-18-2-17(c)). As the Missouri Court of Appeal noted in Volk, “[t]his language does not evidence an intent to prohibit punitive damage awards,” and it instead “expressly grants courts the authority to employ the full array of remedial measures insofar…”
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.