Under the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act, a “transfer” made with actual intent to defraud creditors is voidable. This decision holds that the statutory term “transfer” does not impose any requirement that property be transferred from a debtor to a third party. Instead, a transfer from the debtor to himself can qualify as a voidable “transfer” for purposes of the UVTA if it is intended to and does have the effect of hindering collection of a debt. Here, for example, defendant transferred funds to buy a house in Texas which he then moved into (from California) in order to take advantage of Texas’ unlimited homestead exemption. That was a “transfer” subject to the UVTA.