Okla. Stat. » Title 24 — DEBTOR AND CREDITOR
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 120 (2026)

Voidable and nonvoidable transfers - Creditor's remedies

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

and limitations thereon. A. A transfer or obligation is not voidable as provided for in paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 5 of this act 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 for in this section, to the extent a transfer is voidable in an action by a creditor pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 8 of this act, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted in accordance with the provisions of subsection C of this section, or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against:

1. The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or 2. Any subsequent transferee other than a good faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee. C. If the judgment provided for in subsection B of this section is based upon 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 pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a good faith transferee or obligee is entitled, to the extent of the value given the debtor for the transfer or obligation, to: 1. A lien on or a right to retain any interest in the asset transferred; 2. Enforcement of any obligation incurred; or 3. A reduction in the amount of the liability on the judgment.E. A tran from: 1. Termination of a lease upon default by the debtor when the termination is pursuant to the lease and applicable law; or 2. Enforcement of a security interest in compliance with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. F. A transfer is not voidable pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of Section 6 of this act: 1. To the extent the insider gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor after the transfer was made unless the new value was secured by a valid lien; or 2. If made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the insider; or 3. If made pursuant to a good-faith effort to rehabilitate the debtor and the transfer secured present value given for that purpose as well as an antecedent debt of the debtor. Added by Laws 1986, c. 100, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” Okla Stat. tit. 24, § 120(D). 120 Putting aside again the question whether Defendants are good faith transferees, Plaintiffs’ damages analysis gives Defendants full credit for the “value given to the debtor for the transfer or obligation,” i.”
Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In Re Tronox Inc.), 429 B.R. 73 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). “Similarly, § 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that recovery of fraudulently transferred assets may be sought from “(1) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made,” or “(2) any immediate or mediate transferee of such…”
Soulé v. Alliot (In Re Tiger Petroleum Co.), 319 B.R. 225 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2004). “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 120(A) and (D).”
Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Woodring, 851 P.2d 532 (Okla. 1993). “In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, a creditor, subject to the limitation of Section 9 of this act [24 O.S.1991 § 120], may obtain: 1. avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent…”
Growtech Indus. LLC v. Mary Mechanix LLP (W.D. Okla. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 120 (B). The Tenth Circuit has not addressed whether Fed.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 120(A) — 1 case
Soulé v. Alliot (In Re Tiger Petroleum Co.), 319 B.R. 225 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2004). “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 24 § 120(A) and (D).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 24, § 120(D) — 1 case
Tronox Inc. v. Kerr McGee Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.), 503 B.R. 239 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). “” Okla Stat. tit. 24, § 120(D). 120 Putting aside again the question whether Defendants are good faith transferees, Plaintiffs’ damages analysis gives Defendants full credit for the “value given to the debtor for the transfer or obligation,” i.”
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.