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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.051 (2026)

Transfers voidable as to present 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 whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
(2) A transfer made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
(3) Subject to RCW 19.40.021(2), a creditor making a claim for relief under subsection (1) or (2) 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 5; 1987 c 444 s 5.]

Notes:

Effective date—1987 c 444: See note following RCW 19.40.011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 959 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 959 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 9× “In 1985 Christensen and another person organized CMYC to build luxury yachts in Vancouver, Washington.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 5× “041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a), and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 5× “041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a); and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 135 Wash. 2d 894 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 8× “In 1985 Christensen and another person organized CMYC to build luxury yachts in Vancouver, Washington. CSL is a third corporation created by Christensen in 1993 or 1994.”
Kreidler v. Cascade Nat'l Ins., 321 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “041 or RCW 19.40.051. Additionally, the Receiver concluded that the Trustee’s fraudulent transfer claim failed because Midwest received “reasonably equivalent value” from Cascade, as evidenced by the payment of capital and surplus to Cascade, which al *858 lowed Midwest to…”
Clearwater v. Skyline Constr. Co., 835 P.2d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “040 [sic] or RCW 19.40.051. The Clearwaters' claim of a fraudulent transfer shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs.”
Casterline v. Roberts, 284 P.3d 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “041 and RCW 19.40.051. The evidence supports this conclusion.”
United States v. Komron Allahyari, 980 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2020). “The district 9 In its response, the United States argues for the first time that the 2005 Deed of Trust could also be found to be a fraudulent transfer under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.051 (b) (2004), presumably because that subsection requires a lower standard of proof than…”
United States v. Black, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (E.D. Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 19.40.051. Actual intent may be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence.”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “A transfer made without adequate consideration is constructively fraudulent where any one of the following exists: (1) the debtor was left by the transfer with unreasonably small assets for a transaction or the business in which the debtor was engaged, RCW § 19.”
Sedwick v. Gwinn, 873 P.2d 528 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “11 RCW 19.40.051(a) provides a third basis for establishing constructive fraud as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer.”
Eagle Pac. Ins. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 934 P.2d 715 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The trial court found that the transaction between CMYC and CSL was supported by sufficient consideration and concluded that it did not violate the UFTA’s constructive fraud provision, RCW 19.40.051. Further, the trial court found that CSL was created for the purpose of…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.051(1) — 4 cases
Summit Sec., Inc. v. Sandifur (In re Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co.), 344 B.R. 138 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2006).
United States v. Newby (W.D. Wash. 2020).
Maple Valley Park Place Llc v. Tax Resource Centers, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Summit Sec., Inc. v. Sandifur (In re Metro. Mortg. & Sec. Co.), 343 B.R. 247 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.051(a) — 16 cases
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a), and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a); and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Kreidler v. Cascade Nat'l Ins., 321 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “041 or RCW 19.40.051. Additionally, the Receiver concluded that the Trustee’s fraudulent transfer claim failed because Midwest received “reasonably equivalent value” from Cascade, as evidenced by the payment of capital and surplus to Cascade, which al *858 lowed Midwest to…”
Calvert v. Erdman (In re Nw. Territorial Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018). “A transfer made without adequate consideration is constructively fraudulent where any one of the following exists: (1) the debtor was left by the transfer with unreasonably small assets for a transaction or the business in which the debtor was engaged, RCW § 19.”
Clearwater v. Skyline Constr. Co., 835 P.2d 257 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “040 [sic] or RCW 19.40.051. The Clearwaters' claim of a fraudulent transfer shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.40.051(b) — 7 cases
Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 959 P.2d 1052 (Wash. 1998). “In 1985 Christensen and another person organized CMYC to build luxury yachts in Vancouver, Washington.”
Eagle Pac. Ins. Co. v. Christensen Motor Yacht Corp., 135 Wash. 2d 894 (Wash. 1998). “In 1985 Christensen and another person organized CMYC to build luxury yachts in Vancouver, Washington. CSL is a third corporation created by Christensen in 1993 or 1994.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 227 P.3d 278 (Wash. 2010). “041(a)(1), (2) conclusive common law fraud, (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a), and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Clayton v. Wilson, 168 Wash. 2d 57 (Wash. 2010). “041(a)(1); (2) conclusive common law fraud; (3) constructive fraud as to present creditors under RCW 19.40.051(a); and (4) constructive fraud as to present and future creditors under RCW 19.”
Sherron Assocs. Loan Fund XXI (Lacey) L.L.C. v. Thomas (In re Parks), 503 B.R. 820 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2013).
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.