(10th ed.2014); see also Allie v. Ionata, 503 So.2d 1237, 1240 (Fla.1987) (defining statute of limitations). In contrast, a statute of repose bars a suit after a specified time that is based solely on the actions of the defendant that gave rise to the claim. As á result, the time constraints of a statute of repose are wholly unrelated to when a plaintiff suffers or discovers an actual injury. See Statute of repose, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014); see also Universal Eng’g Corp. v. Perez, 451 So.2d 463, 465 (Fla.1984) (quoting Bauld v e, not a limitations statute. The introductory clause of the statute provides that “[a] cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer ... is extinguished unless action is brought” within the time periods pr B.R. 104, 123 (Bankr.D.N.J.1999) (<HOLDING>); Carpenter v. Granderson, 214 B.R. 671, 675
holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose holding that statute was one of repose because it embodies the most distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose the barring of the right to bring an action rather than the remedy prescribed holding that a statute of repose sets absolute parameters of any action holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense