With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". delay, or defraud creditors. F/R further asserted that the Levin Parties were equitably estopped from asserting section 726.110(1) as a bar to its claim because of the alleged false testimony regarding the reasons for the assignment and the delay in producing accounting documents. In a written order, denying the Levin Parties’ motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court agreed with F/R that the one-year savings clause in section 726.110(1) was not triggered until F/R discovered or should have discovered the fraudulent nature of the assignments. It did not reach F/R’s alternative argument that the Levin Parties were equitably es-topped from asserting d 1186 (1997) (en banc) (same), with In re Hill, No. 3:03-cv-1034-J-32, 2004 WL 5694988, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 4, 2004) (Hill I) (<HOLDING>), and Treinish v. Spitaleri, No. 05-94988, 2006

A: holding that the oneyear period begins to run when the mandate of the court of appeals issues
B: holding that oneyear period runs from the discovery of the transfer
C: holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction
D: holding that oneyear period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer
B.