Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041 (2026)

Transfers voidable as to present and future creditors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:
(a) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or
(b) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
(i) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or
(ii) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they became due.
(2) In determining actual intent under subsection (1)(a) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:
(a) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;
(b) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;
(c) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(d) Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(e) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets;
(f) The debtor absconded;
(g) The debtor removed or concealed assets;
(h) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;
(i) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(j) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and
(k) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor that transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.
(3) A creditor making a claim for relief under subsection (1) of this section has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
[ 2017 c 57 s 4; 1987 c 444 s 4.]

Notes:

Effective date—1987 c 444: See note following RCW 19.40.011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “Property transfer ¶ 21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons' property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 8× “Property transfer ¶21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons’ property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 13× “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
Kreidler v. Cascade Nat'l Ins., 321 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “The proof of claim was based on a fraudulent transfer theory and alleged, in pertinent part, the following: Each of the transfers [from Midwest to Cascade] are fraudulent transfers under RCW 19.40.041 and 19.40.051 because a) each transfer was made without the Transferor…”
Clearwater v. Skyline Constr. Co., 835 P.2d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). The trial court may consider 11 factors in determining whether the requisite intent was present.”
Sedwick v. Gwinn, 873 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “Actual Intent to Defraud The Gwinns contend that Sedwick failed to prove an actual intent to defraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). Under that section, a transfer is fraudulent if it is made by a debtor with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 174 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “" ¶ 24 Under RCW 19.40.041, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if the debtor makes a transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value and the company's remaining assets are unreasonably small in relation to the business.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 142 Wash. App. 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “” ¶24 Under RCW 19.40.041, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if the debtor makes a transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value and the company’s remaining assets are unreasonably small in relation to the business.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 4× “As RCW 19.40.041(a) indicates, transfers may be fraudulent because of a transferor’s intent to delay or hinder or because of lack of reasonably equivalent value received for the transfer.”
Douglas v. Hill, 199 P.3d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Such a reading is bolstered by the language found in RCW 19.40.041, which states that a transfer may be fraudulent "whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
Casterline v. Roberts, 284 P.3d 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The trial court concluded that the transfer was fraudulent under both RCW 19.40.041 and RCW 19.40.051. The evidence supports this conclusion.”
United States v. Black, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (E.D. Wash. 2010). · cites it 6× “As such, the transfers are voidable pursuant to Wash. Rev.Code § 19.40.041(1) and § 19.40.”
Show all 83 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(1) — 7 cases
United States v. Black, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “As such, the transfers are voidable pursuant to Wash. Rev.Code § 19.40.041(1) and § 19.40.”
Kriegman v. Schultz (In re LLS Am., LLC), 520 B.R. 841 (E.D. Wash. 2014).
Milwaukee Avenue, Llc, V. Ted Spice (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
D.l. Evans Bank, V. Henry W. Dean (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
United States v. Weathers (W.D. Wash. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(1)(a) — 11 cases
BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Mal Icious, Llc, V Random Erik Vaughn (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
In The Receivership Of Eunia Lee (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Est. Of Doris Mathews (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Milwaukee Avenue, Llc, V. Ted Spice (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(1)(b) — 5 cases
Vaughn v. Cohen (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Ellis v. Olson (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2023).
Ozone Int'l LLC v. Wheatsheaf Grp. US Inc (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Vaughn v. Cohen (W.D. Wash. 2024).
CEMCO LLC v. KPSI Innovations Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(1)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
Vaughn v. Cohen (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Apex Energy Solutions of Seattle LLC v. Foit (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(2) — 8 cases
BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Vaughn v. Cohen (W.D. Wash. 2024).
Amazon.com Servs. LLC v. Paradigm Clinical Rsch. Inst. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
United States v. Gould (W.D. Wash. 2024).
SRS Distrib. Inc v. Achten Quality Roofing Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(2)(a) — 2 cases
United States v. Gould (W.D. Wash. 2024).
Apex Energy Solutions of Seattle LLC v. Foit (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(2)(b) — 1 case
United States v. Gould (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(2)(f) — 1 case
SRS Distrib. Inc v. Achten Quality Roofing Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(2)(h) — 1 case
United States v. Gould (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(3) — 2 cases
BGH Holdings, LLC v. DL Evans Bank (W.D. Wash. 2023).
Kenneth Wren, et ux. v. Stanford & Sons, LLC (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a) — 16 cases
Eagle Pac. Ins. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 934 P.2d 715 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537 (Wash. 2009). “As RCW 19.40.041(a) indicates, transfers may be fraudulent because of a transferor’s intent to delay or hinder or because of lack of reasonably equivalent value received for the transfer.”
Waldron v. Huber (In re Huber), 493 B.R. 798 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013).
Thompson v. Hanson, 219 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2009).
Douglas v. Hill, 199 P.3d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Such a reading is bolstered by the language found in RCW 19.40.041, which states that a transfer may be fraudulent "whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(1) — 36 cases
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶ 21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons' property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons’ property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 239 P.3d 537 (Wash. 2009). “As RCW 19.40.041(a) indicates, transfers may be fraudulent because of a transferor’s intent to delay or hinder or because of lack of reasonably equivalent value received for the transfer.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
Thompson v. Hanson, 219 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2) — 19 cases
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶ 21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons' property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons’ property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Summit Sec., Inc. v. Sandifur (In re Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co.), 344 B.R. 138 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2006).
Casterline v. Roberts, 284 P.3d 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “The trial court concluded that the transfer was fraudulent under both RCW 19.40.041 and RCW 19.40.051. The evidence supports this conclusion.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2)(f) — 1 case
Thompson v. Hanson, 142 Wash. App. 53 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “” ¶24 Under RCW 19.40.041, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if the debtor makes a transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value and the company’s remaining assets are unreasonably small in relation to the business.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2)(i) — 6 cases
Sedwick v. Gwinn, 873 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Actual Intent to Defraud The Gwinns contend that Sedwick failed to prove an actual intent to defraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). Under that section, a transfer is fraudulent if it is made by a debtor with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.”
Kreidler v. Cascade Nat'l Ins., 321 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The proof of claim was based on a fraudulent transfer theory and alleged, in pertinent part, the following: Each of the transfers [from Midwest to Cascade] are fraudulent transfers under RCW 19.40.041 and 19.40.051 because a) each transfer was made without the Transferor…”
Carbon v. Spokane Closing & Escrow, Inc., 147 P.3d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Thompson v. Hanson, 174 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “" ¶ 24 Under RCW 19.40.041, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if the debtor makes a transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value and the company's remaining assets are unreasonably small in relation to the business.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2)(i)(ii) — 1 case
Douglas v. Hill, 199 P.3d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Such a reading is bolstered by the language found in RCW 19.40.041, which states that a transfer may be fraudulent "whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2)(ii) — 3 cases
Clearwater v. Skyline Constr. Co., 835 P.2d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). The trial court may consider 11 factors in determining whether the requisite intent was present.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
In Re The Marriage Of: Steve Wazny v. Shantel Wazny (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(2017) — 1 case
Northgate Ventures Llc v. Geoffrey H. Garrett Pllc, 450 P.3d 1210 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(a)(l) — 1 case
Rigby v. Mastro (In re Mastro), 465 B.R. 576 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(b) — 12 cases
Sedwick v. Gwinn, 873 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Actual Intent to Defraud The Gwinns contend that Sedwick failed to prove an actual intent to defraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). Under that section, a transfer is fraudulent if it is made by a debtor with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons’ property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶ 21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons' property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
United States v. Black, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (E.D. Wash. 2010). “As such, the transfers are voidable pursuant to Wash. Rev.Code § 19.40.041(1) and § 19.40.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “The Trustee asserts the Transfers may be recovered under RCW § 19.40.041(a)(1) (defining actual fraudulent transfers) and § 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.041(b)(1) — 1 case
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “Property transfer ¶ 21 The trial court found four distinct bases for voiding the Wilsons' property transfer: (1) actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.”
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.