Opinion ID: 209417
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tamerlane II

Text: On February 29, 2008, the Court of Federal Claims issued its definitive opinion on Mullica and Park Terrace's claims. Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 724 (2008) ( Tamerlane II ). Since matters outside of the pleadings had been presented for consideration, the Court of Federal Claims treated the motion as one for summary judgment. The court affirmed the holding of its Tamerlane I opinion with respect to accrual of the statute of limitations in 1991 and 1992. Id. at 735. With respect to the viability of Appellants' claims in the so-called extended period, in Tamerlane II, the court found that those claims should be considered in the context of the continuing claims doctrine. See 80 Fed.Cl. at 735-37. The court reversed its earlier finding on this issue, and held that [w]hile Park Terrace and Mullica seek compensation for a contractual right that promised performance into the future ... a single repudiation made clear the [g]overnment's intent to dishonor the terms of the contract. Id. at 737. Accordingly, the court held that [a]ny subsequent or continuing denial by the government of responding to plaintiffs' rights to prepay their loans and exit the program pursuant to ELIHPA does not give rise to a new cause of action, but flows from the government's original repudiation and later breach occurring in 1992 and 1991. Id. Thus, in reversing its Tamerlane I finding on the extended period claims, the court determined that these claims were also barred by the six-year statute of limitations.