B-174612, JUL 14, 1972

B-174612, JUL 14, 1972

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CHANGE OF STATION - OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION - SALE OF RESIDENCE DECISION ALLOWING RECONSIDERATION OF A RECLAIM VOUCHER, PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IN DECISION, B-174612, JANUARY 12, 1972, FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE BY WALTER PAJALICH, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF MINES. SINCE MR. PAJALICH HAS NOW PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DWELLING WAS HIS ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED OF THE PENDING TRANSFER, THE CLAIM MAY BE PAID AS AUTHORIZED BY OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56. HOWEVER, SINCE MR. PAJALICH WAS VESTED WITH ONLY ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE RESIDENCE BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND WAS CHARGED ONLY ONE-HALF THE CLOSING COSTS, HIS ENTITLEMENTS MUST BE CORRESPONDINGLY LIMITED. SEE SECTION 4.1F OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A 56.

TO MR. ASHLEY L. HOWELL:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 15, 1972, WITH ENCLOSURES, SUBMITTING FOR OUR RECONSIDERATION A RECLAIM VOUCHER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE BY MR. WALTER PAJALICH, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF MINES. THE PRESENT CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION IN B-174612, JANUARY 12, 1972, TO YOU.

IN THE DECISION OF JANUARY 12, 1972, WE HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT BASED UPON THE RECORD THEN BEFORE US IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE DWELLING THAT WAS SOLD, LOCATED IN ORINDA, CALIFORNIA, WAS MR. PAJALICH'S ACTUAL RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS FIRST DEFINITELY INFORMED OF HIS TRANSFER. ON THAT BASIS THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES WAS DISALLOWED.

MR. PAJALICH HAS NOW SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD A MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 24, 1972, BY MR. DONALD R. IRVING, WHEREIN MR. IRVING STATED THAT:

"ON APRIL 16, 1970 THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF MINERAL RESOURCES RECEIVED COPIES OF U.S. BUREAU OF MINES MANUAL RELEASE NO. 1182, WHERE, BY OMMISSION, THIS OFFICE WAS ABOLISHED. BASED ON INFORMATION I RECEIVED FROM MR. FRANK D. LAMB, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR - MINERAL SUPPLY, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON APRIL 20, 1970, I CALLED A STAFF MEETING IN MY OFFICE OF ALL EMPLOYEES AND ADVISED THEM THAT BY JUNE 1971 EVERYONE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA TO ONE OF THE REMAINING MINERAL SUPPLY FIELD OPERATION CENTERS. WALTER PAJALICH WAS ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THAT MEETING. SUBSEQUENTLY AT HIS HOME AT 9 SOULE ROAD, ORINDA, CALIFORNIA, ON MAY 2, 1970, I DISCUSSED THE CLOSING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE AND TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO WASHINGTON."

AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF STATIONS, SECTION 4.1D OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969, STATES:

"D. OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS. THE DWELLING FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT OF SELLING EXPENSES IS CLAIMED WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS FIRST DEFINITELY INFORMED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY THAT HE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION."

WITH REGARD TO MR. IRVING'S MEMORANDUM, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMALLY ADVISED BY THE BUREAU OF MINES THAT THE NOTIFICATION BY MR. IRVING WAS NOTIFICATION BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE TRANSFER TO WASHINGTON, D.C. IN SUCH LIGHT IT MAY NOW BE SAID THAT MR. PAJALICH WAS MADE AWARE OF HIS TRANSFER IN APRIL 1970 WHILE HE WAS STILL RESIDING IN THE ORINDA, CALIFORNIA, HOME. IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT MR. PAJALICH IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT TO THE EXTENT OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM INCIDENT TO THE SALE OF HIS HOME.

YOU HAVE ALSO RAISED A QUESTION CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT SOUGHT BY MR. PAJALICH IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT DWELLING THERE WAS ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION OF HIS MARRIAGE ON AUGUST 13, 1970. IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WE NOTE FROM THE SETTLEMENT SHEET ON THE SALE OF THE ORINDA, CALIFORNIA, HOME THAT THE CLOSING COSTS WERE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE AND SEPARATE CHECKS ISSUED - ONE CHECK TO WALTER PAJALICH AND ONE CHECK TO GLORIA PAJALICH, DIVIDING THE NET PROCEEDS EQUALLY BUT FOR A $100 ITEM CHARGED AGAINST MR. PAJALICH. IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE CLOSING COSTS OF THE SALE WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN MR. PAJALICH AND HIS FORMER WIFE. WE ASSUME THAT SUCH DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 4800 (1970).

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE IT APPEARS MR. PAJALICH WAS VESTED WITH ONLY A HALF INTEREST IN THE ORINDA, CALIFORNIA, DWELLING AND THAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH ONLY ONE-HALF THE CLOSING COSTS, HIS ENTITLEMENTS TO REIMBURSEMENT MUST CORRESPONDINGLY BE LIMITED TO ONE-HALF OF THE SUM CLAIMED IN THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED. SEE SECTION 4.1F OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56.

THE VOUCHER, WITH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS, IS RETURNED HEREWITH FOR HANDLING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.