B-161320, SEP. 5, 1967
Highlights
EXPENSES INCURRED BY EMPLOYEE IN UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING TO SELL RESIDENCE PRIOR TO PLACING IT IN HANDS OF REAL ESTATE BROKER WHOSE AGREEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE ADVERTISING MUST BE REGARDED AS INCLUDED IN BROKER'S FEE IN ABSENCE OF SHOWING OF CUSTOM TO THE CONTRARY PREVAILING IN AREA THAT BROKER'S CHARGES ARE LESS IN CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYEE PAYING ADVERTISING COSTS. THE VOUCHER IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $76.05 AND REPRESENTS ADVERTISING EXPENSES INCURRED BY MR. MANDERSCHEID AND THE BROKER DID NOT REQUIRE THE BROKER TO ADVERTISE THE PROPERTY BUT DID PERMIT THE BROKER TO LIST THE PROPERTY WITH THE MULTIPLE-LISTING SERVICE OF WHICH THE BROKER WAS A MEMBER. IT WAS HELD THAT ADVERTISING EXPENSES INCURRED PRIOR TO PLACING A RESIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF A BROKER FOR SALE ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE IN ADDITION TO THE BROKER'S FEE.
B-161320, SEP. 5, 1967
EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - P.L. 89-516 - HOME SALE/PURCHASE EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RE COSTS OF ADVERTISING SALE OF RESIDENCE INCIDENT TO TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEE FROM SACRAMENTO TO SPOKANE. EXPENSES INCURRED BY EMPLOYEE IN UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING TO SELL RESIDENCE PRIOR TO PLACING IT IN HANDS OF REAL ESTATE BROKER WHOSE AGREEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE ADVERTISING MUST BE REGARDED AS INCLUDED IN BROKER'S FEE IN ABSENCE OF SHOWING OF CUSTOM TO THE CONTRARY PREVAILING IN AREA THAT BROKER'S CHARGES ARE LESS IN CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYEE PAYING ADVERTISING COSTS.
TO MRS. NEDRA A. BLACKWELL:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1967, REFERENCE 360, REQUESTING OUR DECISION ON THE RECLAIM VOUCHER OF BILLY E. MANDERSCHEID, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES HE INCURRED IN SELLING HIS RESIDENCE AT HIS OLD DUTY STATION INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, TO SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, PURSUANT TO TRAVEL ORDER DATED OCTOBER 28, 1966.
THE VOUCHER IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $76.05 AND REPRESENTS ADVERTISING EXPENSES INCURRED BY MR. MANDERSCHEID IN UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING TO SELL HIS RESIDENCE PRIOR TO PLACING IT IN THE HANDS OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR DISPOSAL. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MR. MANDERSCHEID AND THE BROKER DID NOT REQUIRE THE BROKER TO ADVERTISE THE PROPERTY BUT DID PERMIT THE BROKER TO LIST THE PROPERTY WITH THE MULTIPLE-LISTING SERVICE OF WHICH THE BROKER WAS A MEMBER.
IN OUR DECISIONS OF MAY 19, 1967, B-161320, AND JULY 21, 1967, B 161527, IT WAS HELD THAT ADVERTISING EXPENSES INCURRED PRIOR TO PLACING A RESIDENCE IN THE HANDS OF A BROKER FOR SALE ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE IN ADDITION TO THE BROKER'S FEE. COPIES OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE ENCLOSED. THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING OF A CUSTOM TO THE CONTRARY PREVAILING IN THE AREA OR A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE BROKER THAT THE BROKER IS CHARGING LESS THAN THE CUSTOMARY FEE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S PAYING ADVERTISING OR OTHER COSTS, THE FEE PAID THE BROKER IS PRESUMED TO REPRESENT FULL PAYMENT FOR ALL COSTS AND SERVICES CONNECTED WITH THE PROCURING OF A PURCHASER FOR THE RESIDENCE.
ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.