June 5, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 14065-RELO


                    In the Matter of DAWN S. DAUGHERTY


     Dawn S. Daugherty, Los Alamos, NM, Claimant.

     George M. Tengan, Chief Certifying Official, Department of
Energy, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Energy.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Dawn S. Daugherty was transferred from a Department of
Defense facility in Alexandria, Virginia, to a Department of
Energy (DOE) office in Los Alamos, New Mexico.  DOE authorized
reimbursement of expenses she incurred in connection with the
sale of her home in Virginia and purchase of another house in New
Mexico.  Ms. Daugherty sold her residence in Woodbridge,
Virginia, in October 1996 and asked DOE to pay for costs she
incurred in doing so.  DOE paid some of the costs and denied
reimbursement of others.

     Ms. Daugherty has asked us to review the denial of $3,546.80
in closing costs she paid for the buyer of the house.  These
expenses are listed on the settlement sheet as follows:

     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
       funding fee                           $2,000.00
     Title insurance                            420.80
     Appraisal fee                              300.00
     Abstract or title search                   150.00
     Recording fees                              37.00
     Survey                                     235.00
     State tax stamps                           303.00
     City/county tax stamps                     101.00

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that if a
federal civilian employee is transferred from one official
station to another and various conditions are met, miscellaneous
expenses involved in the employee's sale and/or purchase of a
residence shall be reimbursed by the Government under certain
circumstances.  The circumstances are that the expenses "are
customarily paid by the seller of a residence in the locality of
the old official station or by the purchaser of a residence at
the new official station, to the extent they do not exceed
specifically stated limitations, or in the absence thereof,
amounts customarily paid in the locality of the residence."  41
CFR 302-6.2(d) (1996).  The claimant and the agency in this case
disagree as to whether, in Woodbridge, Virginia, in October 1996,
it was customary for the seller of a home to pay a buyer's
closing costs of the kinds listed  above.

     In visiting the key FTR provision on other occasions, we
have held that an expense is "customarily" paid if, by long and
unvarying habitual actions, constantly repeated, such payment has
acquired the force of a tacit and common consent within a
community.  Christopher L. Chretien, GSBCA 13704-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,701 (1996).  We have also explained that the burden is on
the claimant to show that payment of the costs was customary in
the community and at the time in question.  Id.; Paul B. Garvey,
GSBCA 13658-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,690 (1996); Board Rule 404(c) (48
CFR 6104.4(c) (1996)).

     Ms. Daugherty has provided us with two letters regarding the
matter at issue.  One letter is from a local real estate broker;
the other is from a representative of the title insurance company
which was responsible for this transaction.  Both writers explain
that in the relevant community, both at the relevant time and
earlier, it has been customary for sellers of property whose
purchase is being financed by VA loans to pay the buyer's closing
costs.  DOE's only response regarding the matter is a statement
that "[c]laims for reimbursement for other DOE employees from
this area have not included costs for buyer's closing costs."

     This Board has scant independent knowledge of how real
estate transactions are handled in communities around the
country, much less how they have been handled during various
times in the past.  We must of necessity rely on claimants and
agencies, when the usual way of doing things becomes an issue, to
provide us with evidence  on the matter.  Ms. Daugherty has come
forward with credible evidence from knowledgeable persons.  We
note that the assertion contained in the letters is not unique;
in other cases involving VA loans in other communities at other
times, the General Accounting Office held, based on information
provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that
where property was being financed by a VA loan, it was customary
for the seller to pay the buyer's closing costs.  Edward M.
Weglarz, B-236362 (Nov. 9, 1989); James K. Lee, B-191402 (Nov.
22, 1978).  DOE's response is not credible evidence on the matter
at issue.  The agency's statement may be nothing more than a
reflection that other employees who have sold homes in the
Woodbridge area have not sold to individuals who have financed
their purchases with VA loans.  Local custom can vary within a
locality according to the type of mortgage financing the
purchaser obtains.  Jeffrey A. Ciocco, B-256699 (Aug. 12, 1994);
Weglarz.  We find for the claimant as to the customariness of
sellers paying buyer's closing costs.  See Robert Messie, GSBCA
13807-RELO (Mar. 20, 1997).

     This finding does not dispose of the case, however.  We must
review each of the specific items for which Ms. Daugherty seeks
reimbursement to determine whether, pursuant to the FTR,
reimbursement is appropriate.  As to the VA funding fee, the law
is well established that reimbursement is not permissible.  This
fee is the sort of finance charge which the FTR directs agencies
not to reimburse.  41 CFR 302-6.2(2)(v); Peter C. Wagner, GSBCA
13907-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,793; Anders E. Flodin, 64 Comp. Gen.
674 (1985).

     The remaining items are reimbursable "to the extent they do
not exceed specifically stated limitations, or in the absence
thereof, amounts customarily paid in the locality of the
residence."  DOE has not alleged that the amounts claimed should
be reduced for either of these reasons.  The cost of title
insurance is reimbursable in part.  The greater portion, $320.80,
is reimbursable because it went for a mortgage title insurance
policy which was purchased for the protection of, and was
required by, the lender.  41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(viii).  The
remainder constituted owner's coverage, and since we have been
given no indication that it was a prerequisite to financing or
the transfer of the property, rather than for the protection of
the buyer, it is not reimbursable.  Id. 302-6.2(d)(1)(ix),
(2)(i); Messie; Patricia S. Snyder, GSBCA 13797-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,709 (1996); William E. Howard III, B-245457 (Feb. 14, 1992). 
The other costs are fully reimbursable, in accordance with
various provisions of 41 CFR 302-6.2: appraisal fees (paragraph
(b)); title searches and abstract preparation, recording fees,
and costs of making surveys (paragraph (c)); state tax stamps
(subparagraph (d)(1)(v)); and city and county tax stamps
(subparagraph (d)(1)(vi), since they are similar in nature to
state tax stamps).

     We grant Ms. Daugherty's claim in part.  DOE should
reimburse her for $1,446.80 of the closing costs she paid for the
buyer of her home in Woodbridge, Virginia.





                              _________________________
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                              Board Judge