416 B.R. at p. 742 & 86 Cal.App.4th at In re JMC Telecom LLC, supra, Macedo, supra, p. 1050, fn. 4.) contrast to subdivisions (a) and (b), the seven year time limitation set “In forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.09(c) is a statute of repose.” (Rund v. Bank of Am. Corp. (In 523 B.R. at p. 686, citing (S.D. Cal. re EPD Inv. Co., LLC), supra, Donell v. Keppers 2011) 835 F.Supp.2d 871, 877.) We agree with the federal courts that have concluded section 3439.09(c) is a statute of repose. That section provides that a cause of action to void a fraudulent transfer is if it is not filed seven years after the transfer was made or the “extinguished” “within obligation was incurred.” (§ 3439.09(c), italics added.) On its face, section 3439.09(c) is ambiguous with regard to what is extinguished by the passage of the seven-year remedy or the right of action itself. But the legislative history makes clear the Legislature intended expiration of the limitations period to extinguish the right or obligation involved. purpose is to make clear that lapse of the statutory periods “Its prescribed by [section 3439.09] bars the right and not merely the remedy.” (Assem. Com. Report, 5 Assem. J. (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) p. 8586, italics added, supra, excerpts reprinted at 12A pt. 2 West’s Ann. Civ. Code, foll. § 3439.09, p. 386; supra, see 7A pt. II West’s U. Laws Ann., U. Fraudulent Transfer Act, com. to § 9, supra, p. 195.)
In re JMC Telecom LLC, supra, 416 B.R. at p. 742 & Macedo, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 1050, fn. 4.) “In contrast to subdivisions (a) and (b), the seven year time limitation set forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.09(c) is a statute of repose.” (Rund v. Bank of Am. Corp. (In re EPD Inv. Co., LLC), supra, 523 B.R. at p. 686, citing Donell v. Keppers (S.D. Cal. 2011) 835 F.Supp.2d 871, 877.) We agree with the federal courts that have concluded section 3439.09(c) is a statute of repose. That section provides that a cause of action to void a fraudulent transfer is “extinguished” if it is not filed “within seven years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.” (§ 3439.09(c), italics added.) On its face, section 3439.09(c) is ambiguous with regard to what is extinguished by the passage of the seven-year remedy or the right of action itself. But the legislative history makes clear the Legislature intended expiration of the limitations period to extinguish the right or obligation involved. “Its purpose is to make clear that lapse of the statutory periods prescribed by [section 3439.09] bars the right and not merely the remedy.” (Assem. Com. Report, supra, 5 Assem. J. (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) p. 8586, italics added, excerpts reprinted at 12A pt. 2 West’s Ann. Civ. Code, supra, foll. § 3439.09, p. 386; see 7A pt. II West’s U. Laws Ann., supra, U. Fraudulent Transfer Act, com. to § 9, p. 195.)