In Cadle Co. v. 1007 Joint Venture, 82 F.3d 102, 105 (5th Cir. 1996), the Fifth Circuit first considered whether FIRREA's six-year limitations period enured to the benefit of a FDIC successor when the note was not in default until after the FDIC transferred it. Cadle Co., 82 F.3d at 104-05. It held "that an assignee of the FDIC can invoke FIRREA's six-year period of limitations only if the note at issue was in default either before the FDIC acquired it or while the FDIC owned it." Cadle Co., 82 F.3d at 105. While the court spoke in terms of "default" rather than "accrual," its analysis treated the concepts as synonymous: FIRREA's six-year period of limitations has no significance independent of a claim to which it applies; it attaches only to an accrued claim, not to a performing note. . . . The six-year period is not triggered by the FDIC's appointment as receiver; rather, it becomes relevant only upon the accrual of a cause of action, at which time it identifies the starting date for the six-year period. Until there is a default, there is no claim . . . . Cadle Co., 82 F.3d at 105. The court recognized the policies behind extending the six-year period to transferees, but noted that this "reasoning loses force with a note performing when the FDIC transfers it; because such a note is not in default, it has value to a prospective transferee and no limitation period is running." Cadle Co., 82 F.3d at 106.