due and payable and then proceed with the foreclosure of the mortgage.... (United States’ Exhibit # 114.) Provided that the regulatory agreement does not impose an obligation on HUD to perform the actions of which Carrington complains, then HUD’s actions would not support a breach of the regulatory agreement. See Reynolds Associates v. United States, 31 Fed.Cl. 335, 339 (1994) (stating, in suit for breach of a 236 loan regulatory agreement, that “[a] party must rely on the express obligations of its agreement, rather than attempt to bring into the agreement requirements expressed not expressed therein.”) (citing Texas v. United States, 210 Ct.Cl. 522, 537 F.2d 466 (1976)); see also Beck Park Apartments v. United States Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 695 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court must confine the
holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision holding that settlement agreements with hud did not waive sovereign immunity holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision holding hud did not relinquish authority to decrease rents under 236 regulatory agreement because ho express provision applied to rent decreases holding that daughter had no express authority to sign arbitration agreement for mother where no power of attorney and daughter did not discuss signing the agreement with her mother