B-165841, JAN. 22, 1969
Highlights
YOU PREVIOUSLY DISALLOWED HIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE VARIOUS ITEMS CLAIMED WERE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND NO SEPARATE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCURRED AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT. UPON WHICH YOUR ACTION WAS PREDICATED DOES NOT APPLY. SAYS THAT HIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED CONVENTIONALLY AND THAT HE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL DOWN PAYMENT AND THE BUILDER LISTED SEPARATELY A PARTIAL LIST OF CLOSING COSTS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE. SABADASH ALLEGES THAT THE CUSTOM OF THE AREA REFLECTS THAT THE CLOSING COSTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PURCHASER. COPIES OF WHICH ARE ENCLOSED. IN THOSE DECISIONS IT IS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE CONTROLLING LAW OR REGULATIONS FOR TREATING ANY PART OF THE SELLING PRICE OF A RESIDENCE AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE.
B-165841, JAN. 22, 1969
TO MR. FLOYD P. HOUGH:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 18, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURES, REFERENCE F5023-NCR/ABF), RELATIVE TO THE CLAIM OF MR. PAUL M. SABADASH IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,413.40 COVERING EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION. YOU PREVIOUSLY DISALLOWED HIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE VARIOUS ITEMS CLAIMED WERE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND NO SEPARATE CLOSING COSTS WERE INCURRED AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT. MR. SABADASH POINTS OUT THAT THE DECISION B 161110, DATED APRIL 13, 1967, UPON WHICH YOUR ACTION WAS PREDICATED DOES NOT APPLY. SAYS THAT HIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED CONVENTIONALLY AND THAT HE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL DOWN PAYMENT AND THE BUILDER LISTED SEPARATELY A PARTIAL LIST OF CLOSING COSTS WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE. HE ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THE SELLER DID NOT ARRANGE TO INCLUDE CLOSING COSTS IN THE HOUSE PRICE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PURCHASER SINCE HE, THE PURCHASER, MADE A DOWN PAYMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF SUCH CLOSING COSTS. FURTHER, MR. SABADASH ALLEGES THAT THE CUSTOM OF THE AREA REFLECTS THAT THE CLOSING COSTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PURCHASER.
IN ADDITION TO THE DECISION CITED IN YOUR LETTER WE INVITE ATTENTION TO B -163816, MAY 3, 1968, AND B-162835, DECEMBER 21, 1967, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ENCLOSED. IN THOSE DECISIONS IT IS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE CONTROLLING LAW OR REGULATIONS FOR TREATING ANY PART OF THE SELLING PRICE OF A RESIDENCE AS OTHER THAN THE PRICE OF THE REALTY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ESTABLISHING THAT PRICE. THUS THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN B-161110, APRIL 13, 1967, HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO COVER ANY CASE IN WHICH THE CLOSING COSTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE OF THE HOUSE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASER'S DOWN PAYMENT OR WHETHER THE HOUSE PRICE WAS INCREASED FOR THE PURCHASER'S CONVENIENCE TO COVER SUCH COSTS. WE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH ANY PART OF THE CLAIM OF MR. SABADASH FOR $1,413.40 NOW MAY BE ALLOWED.
YOU POINT OUT THAT MR. SABADASH ALREADY WAS ALLOWED $168 AS SHOWN ON THE STATEMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE. WE DO NOT KNOW ON WHAT BASIS THIS AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED. THE TITLE INSURANCE CLEARLY IS DESIGNATED AS OWNERS TITLE INSURANCE. IN SUCH CONNECTION THE REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT COSTS OF OTHER TYPES OF INSURANCE INCLUDING OWNERS TITLE POLICIES ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIFIC FACTS, SUCH AS WOULD INDICATE THE TITLE INSURANCE WAS IN LIEU OF A TITLE SEARCH UNDER THE CUSTOM OF THE AREA, WE WOULD KNOW OF NO PROPER BASIS UPON WHICH THAT AMOUNT PROPERLY COULD BE ALLOWED.
THE VOUCHER WITH ATTACHMENTS WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.