Cca Associates v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23257

HUD-regulated low-income housing program documents (regulatory agreement, secured note, mortgage) were signed in 1969 to induce participation in a 40-year mortgage with a 20-year prepayment option.
LIHPRHA/ELIHPA prohibited prepayment after 20 years, effectively extending HUD rent controls for the property for several years.
CAAs predecessor owned Chateau Cleary; LIHPRHA extended restrictions beyond the 20-year prepayment window until new sale or exit could occur.
The 1996 HOPE Act later lifted the prepayment prohibition after a period of continued LIHPRHA enforcement, reducing the total burden.
Two consolidated issues: (1) whether the prepayment restriction constituted a temporary regulatory taking; (2) whether Congress breached HUD-CCA contractual obligations by abrogating the prepayment right.
The Court of Federal Claims previously held a taking existed and that Cienega IV foreclosed the breach-of-contract claim; the Federal Circuit reverses the takings finding under Cienega X framework while affirming the contract claim ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the prepayment restriction amount to a regulatory taking?	CCA argues economic impact and lack of offsets support takings.	United States contends economic impact is modest and offsetting benefits offset the harm.	No, economic impact insufficient for a taking under Cienega X framework.
Did Congress breach HUD-CCA contract by abrogating prepayment rights?	CCA asserts privity and integrated-contract theory support breach.	Government contends Cienega IV forecloses contractual breach claims.	No privity; Cienega IV forecloses contract claim.

Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (develops Cienega X framework for takings with offsetting benefits)
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Cienega VIII; reiterates whole-property/context in takings analysis)
Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Cienega IV; privity/contract claim discussion)
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (life-of-property approach to takings analysis; context for Penn Central)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (Three-factor takings test: economic impact, investment-backed expectations, character of action)
Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States, 559 F.3d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (offsetting benefits analysis; government evidence lacking)
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1998) (burden of proof for takings claims; substantial burden on plaintiff)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1987) (heavy burden of showing economically viable use)
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 475 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1986) (consideration of mitigating provisions in takings context)
Forest Properties, Inc. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (burden to prove entire economic impact with offsets)