March 20, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13807-RELO


                      In the Matter of ROBERT MESSIE


     Robert Messie, Montpelier, VA, Claimant.

     John F. Best, Chief, Finance and Accounting Division,
Directorate of Resource Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Army.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Robert Messie, a civilian employee of the Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps), sold his home in Tampa, Florida, in October
1995, six months after he had been transferred to the Pentagon. 
The Corps reimbursed him for most of the expenses he incurred in
connection with this sale, but denied his claim for the cost of
owner's title insurance he paid.

     The Federal Travel Regulation and the Department of Defense's
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) both include owner's title insurance
among the expenses which may be reimbursable in connection with the
sale of a residence by a transferred employee.  This expense is
reimbursable if it meets two tests.  First, it must be "customarily
paid by the seller of a residence in the locality of the old
official station . . . , to the extent [it does] not exceed
specifically stated limitations, or in the absence thereof, amounts
customarily paid in the locality of the residence."  Second, it
must be "a prerequisite to financing or the transfer of the
property; or . . . is inseparable from the cost of other insurance
which is a prerequisite to financing or the transfer of the
property."  41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(ix) (1995); JTR C14002-A.4.a.(9)
contains virtually identical language.

     Officials of the Corps initially rejected the claim because no
lender had required that Mr. Messie pay for the insurance, and also
because the Permanent Change of Station Claims Officer in the
Jacksonville District of the Corps believed that it was not
customary in Florida for the seller to pay this charge.  Mr. Messie
responded that the regulations make no mention of any lender
requirement, and that two different realtors had told him that in
the Tampa area at the time he sold the house, it was customary for
the seller to pay for title insurance.  (Mr. Messie said that he
had changed realtors in an attempt to avoid paying this expense,
but had been unable to find one who would not charge it.)  He
attached two documents to his response.  One was a letter from the
realtor who had handled the sale, stating that "title insurance
. . . is a normal expense of closing to the seller, here in
Florida."  The other was the contract for sale and purchase of the
house; it is a preprinted form for the state of Florida which calls
for the seller to pay for the new owner's title insurance.

     Higher-ranking officials of the Corps recognized that Mr.
Messie's analysis of the regulations was correct and that he had
presented a prima facie case that his payment of the title
insurance met the tests of customary payment and prerequisite to
transfer of the property.  They asked that the individuals who had
denied the claim provide written documentation regarding their
contention that local custom is not as Mr. Messie maintains. 
Although no such documentation was forthcoming, the higher-ranking
officials did not reverse the denial; instead, they sent the claim
to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for resolution.  Because the
authority to settle claims against the Government which involve
relocation expenses incurred by federal civilian employees incident
to transfers of official duty station has been transferred from GAO
to this Board, GAO forwarded the claim to us.  See Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-53,  211, 109
Stat. 514, 535 (1995); Determination by Acting Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (June 28, 1996); Delegation of
Authority from Acting Administrator of General Services (July 17,
1996); General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316,
 202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996).

     When questions of local custom arise, as in other matters, the
burden is on the claimant to show why he or she should prevail. 
Board Rule 404(c) (48 CFR 6104.4(c) (1996)); Christopher L.
Chretien, GSBCA 13704-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,701 (1996); Paul B.
Garvey, GSBCA 13658-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,690 (1996).  Mr. Messie has
met this burden.  Through his own explanation, a letter from a
realtor in the community where the transaction occurred, and a
preprinted sales form, he has demonstrated that in Tampa, Florida,
in October 1995, it was customary for a seller of residential
property to pay the owner's title insurance premium.  The agency
has provided no evidence to the contrary.

     Mr. Messie has met the regulatory tests of customary payment
and prerequisite to transfer of the property which are essential to
reimbursement for payment for owner's title insurance.  The Corps
must consequently reimburse him for the amount at issue, $850.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge