B-162274, SEP. 11, 1967

B-162274: Sep 11, 1967

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

NEW MEXICO WAS CHANGED AND EMPLOYEE WAS RETRANSFERRED TO WAPATO. MAY HAVE THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE WAS NOT CONSUMMATED REGARDED AS RESULTING FROM THE RETRANSFER ACTION WHICH WAS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVT. A 56 ARE PAYABLE. SINCE THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REIMBURSABLE IF THE SALE HAD BEEN CONSUMMATED IT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. THE ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE POTENTIAL LITIGATION ARE NOT ITEMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT. VERIFIES THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT RETRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEE THAT HIS PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE INTERRUPTED. ALLSOP'S OFFICIAL STATION WAS CHANGED FROM PARKER. THE DATE UPON WHICH HE ACTUALLY ENTERED ON DUTY AT HIS NEW STATION IS NOT REFLECTED BY THE FILE.

B-162274, SEP. 11, 1967

EMPLOYEES - TRANSFERS - PUBLIC LAW 89-516 - HOME SALE/PURCHASE EXPENSES DECISION TO CERTIFYING OFFICER, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, RE REIMBURSING EMPLOYEE FOR REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO CHANGE IN TRANSFER STATIONS. EMPLOYEE WHO FORFEITED HIS EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT ON PURCHASE OF NEW HOME AND INCURRED LOAN AND LEGAL EXPENSES WHEN ACTION TRANSFERRING EMPLOYEE FROM PARKER, ARIZ., TO SHIPROCK, NEW MEXICO WAS CHANGED AND EMPLOYEE WAS RETRANSFERRED TO WAPATO, WASHINGTON, MAY HAVE THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE WAS NOT CONSUMMATED REGARDED AS RESULTING FROM THE RETRANSFER ACTION WHICH WAS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVT. AND THEREFORE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER BOB CIR. NO. A 56 ARE PAYABLE. SINCE THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REIMBURSABLE IF THE SALE HAD BEEN CONSUMMATED IT MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. THE ITEM OF EXPENSE PAID FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION MAY BE REIMBURSED UNDER SEC. 4.2 OF A-56. THE ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE POTENTIAL LITIGATION ARE NOT ITEMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

TO MR. FRANK A. LIMPOUCH:

YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 14, 1967, REFERENCE "FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT," ENCLOSING A VOUCHER FOR $779.38 IN FAVOR OF MR. LEW JUDD ALLSOP, REPRESENTING EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER OF STATION, REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER THE VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT UNDER AUTHORITY OF PUB. L. 89 516,APPROVED JULY 21, 1966. IN THAT REGARD WE ALSO NOTE THE REMARKS OF THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION IN HIS LETTER TO US OF AUGUST 23, 1967, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, VERIFIES THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT RETRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEE THAT HIS PLANS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE INTERRUPTED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 6, 1966, MR. ALLSOP'S OFFICIAL STATION WAS CHANGED FROM PARKER, ARIZONA, TO SHIPROCK, NEW MEXICO. THE DATE UPON WHICH HE ACTUALLY ENTERED ON DUTY AT HIS NEW STATION IS NOT REFLECTED BY THE FILE. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT HE BEGAN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DWELLING HOUSE AT FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO, A TOWN IN PROXIMITY TO HIS NEW STATION, AND THAT HE EXECUTED A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 19, 1966. AT THAT TIME HE DEPOSITED $500 WITH THE SELLER AS EARNEST MONEY. ALSO, MR. ALLSOP APPLIED TO THE SAN JUAN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION IN FARMINGTON FOR A LOAN TO FINANCE THE PROPOSED PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE AND HIS APPLICATION WAS APPROVED. BOTH THE SELLER AND THE LENDER APPEAR TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION.

ON JANUARY 11, 1967, MR. ALLSOP WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS READY FOR CLOSING BUT ON JANUARY 19 HE INFORMED BOTH THE SELLER AND THE BUILDING ASSOCIATION THAT HE WOULD BE UNABLE TO CONSUMMATE THE PURCHASE BECAUSE HIS OFFICIAL STATION WAS TO BE CHANGED TO WAPATO, WASHINGTON. THE NEW TRANSFER, INCLUDING A PROMOTION, IS EVIDENCED BY STANDARD FORM 50, DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1967, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 5.

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF MR. ALLSOP'S ATTEMPT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE TRANSACTION BOTH THE SELLER AND THE LENDING INSTITUTION ASSERTED CLAIMS AGAINST HIM FOR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES. THESE CLAIMS MR. ALLSOP WAS ABLE TO SETTLE BY FORFEITING TO THE SELLER THE $500 DEPOSITED AS EARNEST MONEY AND BY PAYING TO THE BUILDING ASSOCIATION $199.20, REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSOCIATION. EXPENSES INCURRED BY MR. ALLSOP FOR THE SERVICES OF ATTORNEYS IN EFFECTING SETTLEMENT OF THESE CLAIMS WERE $80.18. THE THREE ITEMS AGGREGATE THE VOUCHERED AMOUNT OF $779.38 FOR WHICH MR. ALLSOP SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT.

THE LEGAL ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE CASE IS WHETHER THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY MR. ALLSOP FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF PUB. L. 89-516, APPROVED JULY 21, 1966, AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY SECTION 4 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.

SO FAR AS HERE PERTINENT SECTION 2 OF PUB. L. 89-516 PROVIDES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"SEC. 23. UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE * * * APPROPRIATIONS OR OTHER FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF * *

"/4) THE EXPENSES OF THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE * * * OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AT THE OLD OFFICIAL STATION AND PURCHASE OF A HOME AT THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION * * *"

WE BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENCE IN MR. ALLSOP'S CASE DID NOT OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE RETRANSFER IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT HE MAY BE REIMBURSED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ITEMS OF EXPENSE INCURRED BY HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION OTHERWISE ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE REIMBURSED BY PUB. L. 89-516, AND SECTION 4 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED OCTOBER 12, 1966.

HAD THE SALE OF THE REALTY IN HIS CASE BEEN COMPLETED MR. ALLSOP COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED UNDER PUB. L. 89-516 OR THE CIRCULAR FOR THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITED BY HIM PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT OF SALE. THEREFORE, THAT ITEM MAY NOT NOW BE ALLOWED.

THE ITEMS OF EXPENSE AGGREGATING $199.20 INCURRED BY THE SAN JUAN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND PAID BY MR. ALLSOP IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF HIS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE TRANSACTION APPEAR TO BE ITEMS FOR WHICH HE COULD HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED UNDER SECTION 4.2 OF THE CIRCULAR HAD THE SALE BEEN CONSUMMATED. IN THAT REGARD A FURTHER CLARIFICATION MAY BE NEEDED AS TO THE $72 ITEM LISTED IN PALMER AND FROST'S LETTER OF JANUARY 24, 1967. IF THESE ITEMS ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE UNDER THAT SECTION WE WILL INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO SUCH A PAYMENT.

THE ATTORNEY'S FEES PAID BY MR. ALLSOP IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT OF THE POTENTIAL LITIGATION ARE NOT ITEMS THAT MAY BE REIMBURSED. SEE SECTION 4.2C OF THE CIRCULAR.

THE VOUCHER TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER IS RETURNED HEREWITH AND MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY THE FOREGOING.