B-185800, APR 14, 1976

B-185800, APR 14, 1976

EMPLOYEE CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IN CONNECTION WITH PURCHASE OF RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION. FEES WERE INCURRED BECAUSE WIFE WAS NOT PRESENT AT CLOSING. IF WIFE'S ABSENCE FROM CLOSING WAS CAUSED BY NECESSITY TO BE AT OLD STATION TO WAIT FOR SALE TO BE CLOSED AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR RELOCATION REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT, FEES MAY BE REIMBURSED.

DANIEL M. HARTNETT - PURCHASE OF RESIDENCE - FEES FOR PREPARATION AND FILING OF POWER OF ATTORNEY:

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM MS. MARIE A. WATKINS, AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, JANUARY 22, 1976, REFERENCE A:F:A:MAW, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER SHE MAY CERTIFY A RECLAIM TRAVEL VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $20.50 SUBMITTED BY MR. DANIEL M. HARTNETT, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. THE VOUCHER IS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND A FEE FOR RECORDING IT IN CONNECTION WITH MR. HARTNETT'S PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER FROM MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., EFFECTIVE MAY 27, 1975.

THE FEES WERE DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BECAUSE PARAGRAPH 2-6.2C OF THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS (FTR) (FPMR 101-7), CONCERNING LEGAL FEES AND EXPENSES, DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF POWER OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. MR. HARTNETT, TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE DISALLOWANCE, STATES THAT A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS NECESSARY SINCE MRS. HARTNETT WAS IN WISCONSIN AT THE TIME OF CLOSING AND WAS UNABLE TO BE PRESENT AT THE CLOSING IN VIRGINIA TO SIGN THE NECESSARY PAPERS.

THE PROVISION IN THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH CONTROLS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR LEGAL FEES IN CONNECTION WITH A PURCHASE OF A RESIDENCE WHEN A CHANGE OF STATION OCCURS IS FTR PARA. 2-6.2C (MAY 1973). THE REGULATION DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR THE FEE RECLAIMED. IN B-168254, NOVEMBER 19, 1969, WE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY WHEN THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE BECAME SICK AND COULD NOT ATTEND THE CLOSING. WE HELD THAT THE NECESSITY FOR THE PREPARATION AND THE FILING OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT ARISE FROM THE TRANSACTION ITSELF, BUT FROM THE INABILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE TO BE PRESENT AT THE SETTLEMENT. THEREFORE, THE FEE WAS REGARDED AS A PERSONAL EXPENSE WHICH COULD NOT BE REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

IN B-176876, NOVEMBER 27, 1972, WE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR PREPARATION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIS ATTORNEY TO ACT FOR HIM AT THE CLOSING OF THE SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENCE. THE RECORD INDICATED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAD REPORTED TO HIS NEW STATION AND WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE CLOSING. WE HELD THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN NECESSITATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTION IN TRANSFERRING THE EMPLOYEE TO A POST SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES DISTANT FROM HIS OLD STATION. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 19, 1969, WAS HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE AND THE FEE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY REIMBURSABLE.

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY MRS. HARTNETT WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE CLOSING. HOWEVER, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY THE HARTNETTS ON MAY 28, 1975, ONE DAY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MR. HARTNETT'S TRANSFER. IT THUS APPEARS THAT, INASMUCH AS THE HARTNETTS COULD NOT MAKE FINAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR RELOCATION UNTIL THEY HAD SECURED PERMANENT QUARTERS, MRS. HARTNETT HAD RETURNED TO HER OLD RESIDENCE TO AWAIT THE CLOSING OF THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW RESIDENCE AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RELOCATION. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HER ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN OCCASIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTION IN TRANSFERRING MR. HARTNETT SEVERAL HUNDRED MILES FROM HIS OLD STATION. THEREFORE, IF THE CERTIFYING OFFICER ASCERTAINS THAT MRS. HARTNETT'S ABSENCE FROM THE CLOSING WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HER PRESENCE IN WISCONSIN WAS REQUIRED BY THE NECESSITY TO BE THERE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RELOCATION, THE FEES IN QUESTION MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT IF OTHERWISE PROPER.

THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED, SHOULD BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE.