the statute unambiguously defines the operative event as the discovery of the disposition of the asset, the statute cannot mean, that the one-year period runs from the claimant’s discovery of facts showing that the disposition of the asset may have been fraudulent as to creditors. To make the existing statutory term “transfer” carry that meaning, we would in effect have to delete it and replace it with a phrase like “fraudulent nature of the transfer” or “facts constituting the cause of action.” It is not within our authority, however, to rewrite an unambiguous statute. See Hayes v. State, 750 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999) (“We are not at liberty to add words to statutes that were not placed there by the Legislature.”); FINR II, Inc. v. Hardee Cty., 164 So.3d 1260, 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (<HOLDING>). That exercise is instead the respo'nsibility
holding that the court may not under the guise of statutory construction rewrite a statutory provision holding that a court may not rewrite the statute to insert an additional requirement not placed there by the legislature holding that the courts in the absence of ambiguity should as a general rule confine themselves to a construction of a statute as written and not attempt under the guise of construction to supply omissions or remedy possible defects in the statute or to insert exceptions not made by the legislature holding that the legislature may create or expand privileges by statute holding that a court may not rewrite the insurance contract under the guise of judicial interpretation