is “an action not founded upon a tort” for purposes of determining the applicable statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2415. United States. v. Neidorf, 522 F.2d 916, 917-18 (9th Cir.1975) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1087, 96 S.Ct. 878, 47 L.Ed.2d 97 (1976). Courts in other districts have held similarly. See, e.g., Desmond v. Moffie, 375 F.2d 742, 743 (1st Cir.1967) (finding a fraudulent conveyance claim under Massachusetts Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Law not to be a tort for purposes of choosing appropriate statute of limitations); Branch v. F.D.I.C., 825 F.Supp.384, 419-20 (D.Mass.1993) (finding a fraudulent conveyance claim not to be a tort claim for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act); F.D.I.C. v. Martinez Almodovar, 671 F.Supp. 851, 871 (D.P.R.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because a fraudulent transfer claim in
holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy holding that the applicable statute of limitations in fraudulent conveyance action brought by fdic was a sixyear term for contract actions rather than a threeyear term applicable to actions for money damages founded upon a tort holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations holding the twoyear period for filing a particular tort action such as assault and battery controls over the more general threeyear statute of limitations for tort actions holding that the threeyear statute of limitations applicable to  1983 actions in arkansas governed idea claims