Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________ July 16, 1998 ________________ GSBCA 14524-RELO In the Matter of CECELIA A. VAN LOTON Cecelia A. Van Loton, Juno Beach, FL, Claimant. Andrea M. Brown, Certifying Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Atlanta, GA, appearing for Environmental Protection Agency. PARKER, Board Judge. In August 1996, in anticipation of a hoped-for relocation to Florida, Cecelia Van Loton, an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), entered into a verbal agreement with a friend, Paul Harper. Under this agreement, Ms. Van Loton was to pay to Mr. Harper, beginning in December 1996, $500 per month towards the mortgage on a house in Atlanta which Mr. Harper owned. Ms. Van Loton believed that she received a financial interest in the property in return for these payments. Ms. Van Loton and Mr. Harper intended to sell the house upon Ms. Van Loton's relocation and buy a residence together in Florida. Ms. Van Loton was unable to find a new position in Florida until June 1997. The written authorization for Ms. Van Loton's relocation, issued on July 14, provided for reimbursement of real estate expenses incurred in connection with the sale of a residence at her old duty station in Atlanta. At that time, Ms. Van Loton was advised that she would not be able to claim reimbursement of real estate expenses in connection with Mr. Harper's house because there was no public record of her interest in the property. Accordingly, on July 29, Mr. Harper executed a deed which gave Ms. Van Loton a one-half interest in the property. Ms. Van Loton moved to Florida in August 1997. The house that she owned with Mr. Harper was sold in October. EPA, which is not certain whether it should pay Ms. Van Loton's claim for reimbursement of $10,989.69 in real estate expenses incurred in connection with the sale of the house, forwarded the matter to the Board for decision. As discussed below, we hold that the claim may not be paid. Discussion The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which governs allowances for expenses incurred in connection with transferred employees' residence transactions, sets forth specific conditions under which such allowances are payable. Among the conditions are the following: (1) Title interest must have been acquired prior to notification of transfer. For an employee to be eligible for reimbursement of the costs of selling a dwelling . . . the employee's property interest must have been acquired prior to the date the employee was first officially notified of his/her transfer to the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.1(c)(1) (1997). The required title interest may be a "legal" or an "equitable" interest. If a title interest is "legal," " title to the residence is determined by the name of the party (or parties) on the title document (e.g., the deed)." 41 CFR 302-6.1(c)(2). Ms. Van Loton was notified of her transfer by July 14 at the latest but did not have her name on the title until July 29. Thus, her situation fails to meet the conditions required by this section that the employee's name be on the title prior to notification of his or her transfer. A transferred employee who lacks a legal title interest in a residence still may qualify for reimbursement of real estate expenses if he or she possesses an "equitable" title interest in the property. The FTR sets forth the situations in which an employee can be considered to possess such an interest: The employee, and/or a member(s) of his/her immediate family, in a situation listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (v) of this section is deemed to have title to the residence without regard to whether his/her name appears on the title document. . 41 CFR 302-6.1(c)(3). Paragraphs (c)(3)(i) though (v) describe situations in which title to the property is held in trust [(c)(3)(i)], or by a financial institution [(c)(3)(ii)], includes an accommodation party (co-signer) [(c)(3)(iii)], or is held by the seller (as in the case of a land contract) [(c)(3)(iv)], or in the name of the employee and an individual who is not an immediate family member [(c)(3)(v)]. None of the listed situations are analogous to Ms. Van Loton's situation. At the time Ms. Van Loton was notified of her pending transfer, she had only an oral agreement to make payments to Mr. Harper in return for a financial interest in the property. Under the FTR, this arrangement does not constitute the kind of equitable title interest which would entitle Ms. Van Loton to be reimbursed the expenses incurred in selling the property. Decision At the time she was notified of her pending transfer to Florida, Ms. Van Loton did not possess a legal or equitable title interest in her residence in Georgia. Accordingly, her claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the sale must be denied. __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge