100 Fed. Cl. 792
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Defendant moves to dismiss certain takings claims as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- Plaintiffs allege ELIHPA and LIHPRHA effected regulatory takings of their mortgage prepayment rights.
- Dates for prepayment eligibility were determined from twenty-year anniversaries or HUD endorsement dates depending on property.
- Eleven properties are at issue; ten are charged as untimely based on eligibility dates prior to August 25, 1991, while Riverside Village is timely.
- Court analyzes accrual to determine when the statute of limitations begins, focusing on the eligibility to prepay as the accrual date.
- Rulings: ten properties barred; Riverside Village timely; motion granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a takings claim accrue for these programs? | accrue when HOPE/ELIHPA terminated the taking | accrual occurs at the 20-year prepayment eligibility date | Accrual at the mortgage prepayment eligibility date |
| Are ten properties untimely due to pre-1991 eligibility dates? | dates ripened later under ripeness doctrine | dates show timely accrual before Aug 25, 1991 | Ten properties untimely; claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Is Riverside Village timely despite HOPE Act timing? | timeliness preserved by end-date of eligibility | timeliness admissible only if eligibility before cutoff | Riverside Village timely; timely filed |
| Does LIHPRHA affect accrual or ripeness analysis? | may affect quantum but accrual date remains eligibility | LIHPRHA could shift ripeness/accrual analysis | Accrual remains the eligibility date; ripeness left for later analysis |
| Do cited authorities govern accrual date in this context? | Creppel and related cases support earlier accrual | Alder Terrace/Celentano support accrual at eligibility | Court adopts eligibility-date accrual as controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (accrual when damages first occur due to regulatory restrictions)
- Celentano v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 596 (Fed. Cl. 1998) (accrual tied to first unavailability of prepayment rights)
- Royal Manor, Ltd. v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 58 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (accrual linked to when contract rights could be exercised)
- Creppel v. United States, 41 F.3d 627 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (temporary takings accrual unaffected by later events; limits time to sue)
- Parkwood Associates L.P. v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 809 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (accrual at date of prepayment request when option existed)
- Independence Park Apartments v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 692 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (accrual timing analyzed; end of taking relevant for valuation, not accrual)
- City Line Joint Venture v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 312 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (accrual tied to prepayment eligibility; timing of taking period)
- Cienega Gardens v. United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 434 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (as-applied takings began on initial prepayment eligibility dates)