I understand your dilemma.
It would be considered fraud under both State and Federal law. I don't want to see you have additional issues due to the transfer by quit claim. I know that this is not the answer that you were hoping to receive however, I have an ethical duty to provide you with the law.
I am providing a link for the applicable Arizona Statute as well as anadditional link for the history of the law.
TRANSACTIONS AND TRANSFERS AFFECTING THE INTEREST OF CREDITORS
Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
“Arizona Revise Statutes 44-1004. Transfersfraudulent as to present and future creditors
A. A transfer made or obligationincurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor'sclaim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation wasincurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation under anyof the following:
1. With actual intent to hinder, delayor defraud any creditor of the debtor.
2. Without receiving a reasonablyequivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtoreither:
(a) Was engaged or was about to engagein a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtorwere unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction.
(b) Intended to incur, or believed orreasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his abilityto pay as they became due.
B. In determining actual intent undersubsection A, paragraph 1, consideration may be given, among other factors, towhether:
1. The transfer or obligation was toan insider.
2. The debtor retained possession orcontrol of the property transferred after the transfer.
3. The transfer or obligation wasdisclosed or concealed.
4. Before the transfer was made orobligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit.
5. The transfer was of substantiallyall of the debtor's assets.
6. The debtor absconded.
7. The debtor removed or concealedassets.
8. The value of the considerationreceived by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferredor the amount of the obligation incurred.
9. The debtor was insolvent or becameinsolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
10. The transfer occurred shortlybefore or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.
11. The debtor transferred theessential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to aninsider of the debtor.” http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/44/01004.htm&Title=44&DocType=ARS
“UniformFraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA)
In 1984, this Uniform FraudulentConveyances Act was revised and renamed the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act(UFTA). Under state and federal fraudulent transfer laws, a person who owes adebt cannot transfer or convey assets if the intent is to hinder, delay ordefraud his creditors. The UFTA creates a right of action for any creditoragainst any debtor and any other person who has received property from thedebtor in a fraudulent transfer. The UFTA has been adopted in many states, andothers have enacted similar laws prohibiting a debtor from transferring assetsin order to keep creditors from being paid.
Because it is difficult to proveintent to defraud, laws prohibiting fraudulent transfers are often assumed tobe violated if a "badge of fraud" is present. Thus, the debtor isassumed to have made the transfer to defraud creditors in violation of the UFTAor other state fraudulent transfer laws if she:
- makes the transfer directly after being sued or threatened with litigation (suspicious timing);
- transfers property to a business partner, friend or relative (an insider);
- actually controls the property although it is no longer in her name;
- sells the asset for a price below its value; and/or
- transfers everything she owns, leaving no assets for herself. “
Please give me a moment to provide you with a link for local attorneys that may be able to assist you with some asset protection that would not be illegal.