Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: of Mishawaka I, Church Park Apartments, Willow Creek Apartments, and Riverside Village Apartmentshad twenty-year prepayment eligibility dates that occurred during the period that LIHPRHA was in effect. Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims accrued on each property's twenty-year prepayment eligibility date. Plaintiffs, relying principally on Creppel v. United States, 41 F.3d 627, 632 (Fed.Cir.1994), wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") explained that "property owners cannot sue for a temporary taking until the regulatory process that began it has ended," contend that their claims accrued in 1996 when the HOPE Act ended the regulatory process that began the temporary taking. Cf. Greenbrier v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 637, 642 (2007) (<HOLDING>). The court concludes that plaintiffs' claims
Holding statements: (A) recognizing some dispute over the accrual date for temporary taking claims based on elihpalihprha mortgage payment restrictions (B) holding that where payment toward judgment was for less than the total amount of principal and interest owed that payment then did not terminate the accrual of interest on the remaining principal (C) holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due (D) holding erisas accrual date for limitations period controlled despite contrary language in policy (E) holding that accrual date begins to run on the date the employee is notified unambiguously of the adverse employment action
Output:
holding that where payment toward judgment was for less than the total amount of principal and interest owed that payment then did not terminate the accrual of interest on the remaining principal