should be voided for lack of mutuality] and the [Conservation Service’s] obvious disregard [of its] terms.”). Declaratory relief is available in Tucker Act suits when it is an “incident of and collateral to” a money judgment, meaning it must be “subordinate to a money judgment.” James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573, 580 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For example, this court has jurisdiction to determine, as a prerequisite to a claim for back pay, that a soldier’s discharge was erroneous, even if the court then holds that the soldier is not entitled to back pay. Id. In the Telzrows’ case, a declaration that the easement deed is invalid could be subordinate to a judgment for the government, because the Telzrows then would have no basis for a claim of breach of contract. See Gould, 67 F.3d at 929-30 (<HOLDING>). But a determination that the easement deed is
holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants holding that a state court judgment that modifies a discharge in bankruptcy is void ab initio and the rookerfeldman doctrine would not bar federal court jurisdiction holding that the tucker act confers jurisdiction to hear claims for alleged breach of contract and that jurisdiction is not lost if the court later determines on the merits that the alleged contract is in fact void ab initio or invalid holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio