protections of section 726.110(1), The trial court thereafter entered a partial final judgment finding that the assignments were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and declared those transfers void under FUFTA. This timely appeal followed. II. We first address whether the one-year savings clause in section 726.110(1) is triggered by discovery of the transfer or by discovery of the facts showing that transfer to have been fraudulent. If the latter, the parties agree that the action is timely; if the former, they agree it is not. There is no precedent on the question from Florida’s state courts, and'courts interpreting the Uniform Act in other jurisdictions have reached differing results. Compare Schmidt v. HSC, Inc., 131 Hawaii 497, 319 P.3d 416, 426 (2014) (<HOLDING>), and Freitag v. McGhie, 133 Wash.2d 816, 947
holding that where an appellant never received notification of any denial  the oneyear period within which to file an nod which commences with the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination did not begin to run holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer holding that where appellant never received notification of any denial  the oneyear period within which to file an nod which commences with the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination did not begin to run holding that discovery of the fraudulent practice on which liability is based rather than the discovery of damages commences the running of the limitations period for securities fraud holding that oneyear period runs from the discovery of the transfer