The Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act authorizes a plaintiff to obtain “an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property.” Those four little words — “or of other property” — are game-changing.

Since TUFTA was enacted nearly four decades ago, those words have rarely been invoked to their full potential. Given the foundation provided by the statutory text and existing case law, practitioners shouldn’t hesitate to seek expansive and creative forms of relief.

TUFTA allows a plaintiff to prevent further transfers of fraudulently conveyed assets, but plaintiffs aren’t limited to that relief. They can also seek to enjoin any “other property” that could be used to satisfy a judgment.

This scope of relief spares the plaintiff the difficult task of trying to trace assets that were transferred multiple times or segregate funds that were commingled. It also avoids the general rule that a court may not freeze assets unrelated to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Instead, all non-exempt assets are deemed fair game because any of them could be used to pay a judgment.

This outcome is essential to effectuating TUFTA’s purpose: preventing defendant debtors from prejudicing plaintiff creditors by moving assets out of reach or hiding funds out of sight. As one court put it, a “TUFTA plaintiff seeks to recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, not the specific asset itself, which in many cases left the defendant’s possession long ago.”

When a party improperly moves or hides assets, the remedy must include access to alternative sources of funds. Limiting a plaintiff’s relief to chasing down the fraudulently dissipated assets would, in many cases, equate to no relief at all.

Beyond preserving assets that can be used to satisfy a judgment, plaintiff’s counsel can use TUFTA’s “other property” provision to advance their cases in at least three other ways.

First, counsel can invoke that language in an application for a temporary injunction to facilitate early discovery into the defendant’s assets. Depending on the nature of the case, this could include court-ordered disclosures, negotiated exchanges of information, or live examinations at a hearing, to name just a few options.

When a defendant claims to be judgment-proof — which is inevitably followed by a demand to settle at fire-sale prices — deciding whether to invest in litigation or pursue settlement involves considerable uncertainty and risk. Exploring what assets, if any, the plaintiff could ultimately recover at the temporary injunction stage, before the bulk of merits discovery and long before the judgment-enforcement stage, provides significant advantages.

This discovery process may also involve less friction than typical litigation discovery. Because TUFTA defendants who refuse to provide information about their assets make it impossible for the court to issue a narrowly tailored injunction, and sometimes find themselves facing broad injunctive restraints as a result, there is strong incentive to cooperate.

TUFTA also includes a catch-all provision authorizing courts to grant “any other relief the circumstances may require.” Applying this provision, courts in Texas (and other states with parallel laws) have ordered more involved measures such as a formal accounting of dissipated assets. Whether used to reach a more favorable settlement or get a head start on litigating toward trial, practitioners should take advantage of this opportunity to gather information.

Second, plaintiff’s counsel can use the “other property” provision to generate settlement pressure by disrupting their adversary’s ordinary dealings. In the context of personal assets, courts have rightfully taken care to avoid interfering with exempt assets or money used toward basic needs, but they have also limited spending to fund lavish lifestyles and restricted payments to other adults.

As to business assets, courts have enjoined tens of millions of dollars of funds without regard for a defendant company’s need for working capital, forbidden defendants from engaging in transactions that are central to their businesses, and even halted pending sales, among other measures. The immediate and acute burden of injunctive relief often carries more weight than the distant, contingent threat of an unfavorable final judgment. When practitioners can carry the bigger stick, they should.

Third, given the statutory authorization to enjoin “the debtor or a transferee,” plaintiffs may be able to reach assets held by trusts and affiliated entities without the burden of piercing the veil. On this point, TUFTA creates a lower bar: A transferee is protected only if they “took in good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value.”

Because the “and” requires both elements, someone who takes an asset without providing reasonably equivalent value can be subject to an injunction, regardless of culpability. Put differently, TUFTA “operates against the title of an ‘innocent’ transferee who has not paid value just a[s] fully as against the title of a transferee who has participated in a fraud.”

When a transferee is within the statute’s ambit, the plaintiff may again seek an injunction “of the asset transferred or of other property.” This allows practitioners to achieve the advantages noted above while also reaching into a third party’s pocket.

Since the 1980s, 45 states have adopted their own versions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and almost all of them include the “other property” language. Yet litigants have invoked the law for purposes like these only rarely.

Courts have discretion over the scope of injunctive relief and may focus on tracing the fraudulently transferred assets. But the case law isn’t littered with rejected or narrowed requests for relief. Rather, it appears that parties generally haven’t asked for more expansive relief. To tap into TUFTA’s full potential, attorneys should think bigger.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.

Author Information

Caitlin Halpern is a partner at Gibbs & Bruns, litigating high-stakes disputes on both sides of the docket.

Halpern is a 2026 honoree of Bloomberg Law’s “They’ve Got Next: The 40 Under 40.”