B-172160, JUL 7, 1971
Highlights
SINCE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ARRIVAL AT NEW STATION AND NO LITIGATION CAUSED THE DELAY. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ROME. SETTLEMENT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME WAS NOT CONSUMMATED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED FEBRUARY 11. FOR THE REASON THAT SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 4.1C. THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF APRIL 6. IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT UNDER THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD THAT A DELAY NOT CAUSED BY LITIGATION OR COVERED BY A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD DOES NOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES IN THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE.
B-172160, JUL 7, 1971
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION - REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES DECISION AFFIRMING PREVIOUS DECISION DISALLOWING CLAIM OF MR. JULIAN J. BURNEKO, DEPARTMENT OF NAVY EMPLOYEE, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN SALE OF RESIDENCE INCIDENT TO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. SINCE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ARRIVAL AT NEW STATION AND NO LITIGATION CAUSED THE DELAY, NO LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENT EXISTS.
TO MR. JULIAN J. BURNEKO:
WE AGAIN REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1971, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME, NEW YORK, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.
YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ROME, NEW YORK, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. YOU REPORTED FOR DUTY AT YOUR NEW STATION ON DECEMBER 30, 1968, AND SETTLEMENT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME WAS NOT CONSUMMATED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3, 1970. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1971, FOR THE REASON THAT SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 4.1C, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, NOR DID THE RECORD SHOW AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF TIME BY REASON OF LITIGATION AS PERMITTED BY THAT REGULATION.
THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISION OF APRIL 6, 1971, B-172160, IN WHICH YOU WERE ADVISED THAT UNDER THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD THAT A DELAY NOT CAUSED BY LITIGATION OR COVERED BY A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD DOES NOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES IN THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE, CITING 47 COMP. GEN. 753 (1968) AND 48 COMP. GEN. 71 (1968).
IN THAT DECISION WE NOTED THAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WHICH WAS APPROVED. HOWEVER, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS WAS NOT A VALID EXTENSION SINCE NO LITIGATION WAS INVOLVED NOR HAD YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR PROPERTY DURING THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
WITH YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU HAVE FURNISHED A COPY OF A CONTRACT WITH A REAL ESTATE BROKER DATED DECEMBER 8, 1969, TO LIST YOUR HOME FOR SALE. ALSO, YOU SAY YOU HAD AN ORAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BROKER REGARDING THE SALE OF YOUR HOME IN SEPTEMBER 1969. YOU MAINTAIN THAT YOUR PROPERTY WAS DIFFICULT TO SELL AND SAY YOU DISCUSSED AN EXTENSION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE WRITTEN REQUEST REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION.
THE LANGUAGE "SALE/PURCHASE CONTRACTS *** ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE YEAR PERIOD" APPEARING IN SECTION 4.1E OF CIRCULAR A-56 AS A CONDITION TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME REFERS TO CONTRACTS BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS OF RESIDENCES NOT TO CONTRACTS WITH BROKERS TO FIND BUYERS FOR RESIDENCES. THEREFORE, WE AGAIN FIND NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.