February 26, 2009
CBCA 1253-RELO
In the Matter of ELIAS ROLLIE-HARVENS
Elias Rollie-Harvens, Yorktown, VA, Claimant.
Captain Teah Lambright, Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate, Department of the Air Force, Langley Air Force Base, VA, appearing for
Department of the Air Force.
STERN, Board Judge.
Mr. Elias Rollie-Harvens was transferred by the United
States Air Force (Air Force) from Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, to Langley
Air Force Base, Virginia in June 2006.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens incurred various real estate fees in connection with
his purchase of a home at his new location.
The Air Force does not deny Mr. Rollie-Harvens entitlement under the
federal travel regulations to be paid real estate expenses incurred pursuant to
the move; it, however, has disallowed certain of the expenses claimed by Mr.
Rollie-Harvens.
Background
Mr. Rollie-Harvens submitted a claim to the Air Force
for the reimbursement of $14,533.06 for real estate expenses associated with
the purchase of his new residence. In a
submittal to the Board he revised this claim to $11,213. The Air Force initially approved a payment to
Mr. Rollie-Harvens of $3067.40. By
letter of June 27, 2008, the Air Force allowed a payment of an additional
$452. After the claim was filed with the
Board the Air Force submitted a document approving a total payment of $9177.15
to Mr. Rollie-Harvens. The Air Force
identified eleven fees that it would not pay.
The Air Force claims that these fees are not allowable or that claimant
has failed to substantiate his claimed costs.
In response, Mr. Rollie-Harvens provided additional support for six of
the eleven items denied by the Air Force.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens did not challenge the denial by the Air Force of the
other expenses set forth in his original claim.
The discussion below addresses only those six costs that remain in
contention. Any payments authorized by
this decision are in addition to the $9177.15 that the Air Force has already
agreed to pay.
Discussion
An employee is entitled to be reimbursed for certain
expenses incurred in connection with his or her transfer from one official
station to another. 41 CFR 301-11.1
(2006). Under certain conditions,
satisfied by claimant here, expenses associated with the purchase of a residence at the new duty location must be
paid. 41 CFR 302-11.6. The regulations set forth the type of
expenses that are reimbursable. 41 CFR
302-11.200. Generally, we look to the
settlement sheets to determine what expenses were paid by the purchaser. Harlan C. Thiel, GSBCA 13668-RELO,
97-1 BCA & 28,710 (1996).
However, we are not bound by those sheets. Nishelle Grant, CBCA 1245-RELO (Jan.
14, 2009).
Mr. Rollie-Harvens seeks to be reimbursed $3775 for
the loan origination fee, representing one percent of the purchase price of
$377,500. Loan origination fees not to
exceed one percent are expenses payable under the regulations. 41 CFR 302-11.200 (f)(2). The HUD-1 settlement sheet discloses that
claimant paid a loan origination fee of $120 before settlement and $3655 at
settlement, for a total of $3775. The
Air Force mistakenly states that the HUD-1 form shows that only $3655 was
paid. Claimant is entitled to be paid
the additional $120.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens claims entitlement to a $425
application and credit report fee. This
fee does not appear on the settlement sheet.
Claimant submits a statement from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage listing an Aapplication fee@ of
$425. However, the only $425 entry on
the settlement sheet is listed as an Aappraisal
fee.@ The Air Force
has already agreed to pay this fee. The
unsubstantiated additional $425 application and credit report fee is not
allowed.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens seeks payment for a land survey fee
of $300. Under the regulations, survey fees are reimbursed if required for
legal or financing purposes. 41 CFR
302-11.200(d); William Duncan Baker, CBCA 1145-RELO, 08-2 BCA & 33,881. The
survey fee is listed on the settlement sheet.
However, claimant has produced no evidence that the fee was required by
the lender or for other legal purposes.
We deny reimbursement.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens also asks to be reimbursed a loan
commitment fee of $300. Such fees,
however, are finance charges under the Truth in Lending Act, Title I, Pub. L.
90-321, as amended, and Regulation Z issued by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System. David P.
Brockelman, GSBCA 14604-RELO, 98-2 BCA &
29,971. As such, this fee is
specifically listed as unallowable under
the regulations. 41 CFR 302-11.202(g); Hwai-Tai
Lam, CBCA 703-RELO, 07-2 BCA &
33,665. Claimant is not entitled to be
paid this fee.
Mr. Rollie-Harvens also claims entitlement to a Atitle enhancement fee@ in the
amount of $266.70. This amount appears
on the settlement sheet as being paid to Peninsula Title Company, Inc. This amount is in addition to the title
insurance fees of $1433.50 ($956 which
has been allowed as lender=s
coverage). The regulations permit
payment for title insurance only to the extent required by and for the
protection of the lender. 41 CFR
302-11.200(8). Claimant has submitted no
evidence that the lender required this additional protection and that it was
for the lender=s benefit. This
claim is denied.
Finally, Mr. Rollie-Harvens asks to be paid a Atermite and moisture inspection fee@ in the amount of $65.
This amount does not appear on the settlement sheet. There is no receipt or other proof of this
payment in the record. This claim is
denied.
Decision
Mr. Rollie-Harvens is entitled to be paid $120 in
addition to the $9177.15 already approved by the Air Force.
__________________________
JAMES L. STERN
Board Judge
Subsequent
to receipt of the parties= submissions, the Board made numerous attempts to hold
a telephonic conference with the parties in an effort to bridge the minor
differences on the remaining issues before the Board. The Board also sought to clarify by phone
conference a possible discrepancy in figures submitted by the Air Force. For example, in its submission of October 29,
2008, the Air Force listed numerous items that it would pay Mr.
Rollie-Harvens. These items total
$8877.15. Yet, in its summary, the Air
Force states that it recommends that Mr. Rollie-Harvens be paid $9177.15. The Board=s
attempts to hold a telephonic conference were frustrated by the failure of
counsel for the Air Force to be available for such a conference.
