With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Mishawaka I, Church Park Apartments, Willow Creek Apartments, and Riverside Village Apartments—had 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

A: 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
B: holding erisas accrual date for limitations period controlled despite contrary language in policy
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: recognizing some dispute over the accrual date for temporary taking claims based on elihpalihprha mortgage payment restrictions
D.