Opinion ID: 2742025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Amended-Settlement Claim

Text: Higgins argues that because a grantee’s release was never executed, she was unable to formally communicate the disputed claim. She asserts that she thus is entitled to an amended settlement. The government responds that regardless whether a grantee’s release was executed, the amended-settlement claim accrued on May 26, 2004, because the claim arose from the Settlement Notice. We agree with the government that the Claims Court also lacked jurisdiction over the amended-settlement claim because that claim first accrued more than six years before Higgins filed her complaint. The amended-settlement claim stems from the Set- tlement Notice dated May 26, 2004. The only contingency that Higgins claims to apply in her case is for “[u]nresolved disputes or claims identified on the Grantee’s Release.” Appellant’s Br. 9–10; Opinion at 6. While Higgins repeatedly insists that every grantee is entitled HIGGINS v. US 7 to a release, she has provided no statutory or regulatory basis for that entitlement. Regardless whether a release would have been procedurally proper for a closeout, Higgins was on notice of that contingency through the Settlement Notice and she knew that she did not possess a grantee’s release. We therefore hold that the Claims Court did not err in finding that the amended-settlement claim first accrued on May 26, 2004. For the Claims Court to have jurisdiction, Higgins’ claims must have first accrued by December 28, 2006: six years before she filed her complaint. Martinez, 333 F.3d at 1304. To challenge the grant termination or the availability of an amended settlement, Higgins should have filed suit before the statute of limitations expired. Because we agree with the Claims Court’s findings that the clock began running no later than May 2004 for both the breach of contract and amended-settlement claims, we hold that the Claims Court did not err in dismissing those claims for lack of jurisdiction.