The most important factor in almost every asset protection case is the timing between the time the assets were transferred and the time of the creditor’s claim.  In TrustCo Bank v. Mathews, the court held that a plaintiff was barred from bringing a fraudulent transfer claim because the statute of limitations had run.  Susan Mathews signed a personal guaranty in 2006.  A few months later she transferred stock to a couple of Delaware asset protection trusts.   The plaintiffs brought a fraudulent transfer claim against the trusts on March 1, 2013 and the court ruled that the claim was barred because the statute of limitations on fraudulent transfers had run.  This case is interesting because the transfer actually occurred after Susan had incurred an obligation.  Because the transfer occurred after the obligation, the transfer probably would have been voidable as a fraudulent transfer if not for the statute of limitations.  In other words, the planning worked only because of the timing between the date of the transfer and the date of the fraudulent transfer action.