Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________ September 24, 1998 _____________________ GSBCA 14575-RELO In the Matter of RICHARD P. HEBERT Richard P. Hebert, Caribou, ME, Claimant. Mark Slowiaczek, Office of General Counsel, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Mr. Richard P. Hebert, claimant in this case, asks us to review his agency's denial of a claim for $1250 allegedly incurred in conjunction with the purchase of a home at his new permanent duty station (PDS). He paid the amount in question to the State of Maine in satisfaction of a lien imposed on the property for failure of the seller to pay child support. He contends that satisfaction of this lien was a condition to his obtaining financing for the purchase of the house and should, therefore, be reimbursable. We deny the claim. Background Claimant is an employee of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). His PDS prior to transfer was in Cleveland, Ohio. In July 1997, he was issued orders transferring him to the DFAS office in Limestone, Maine. In December 1997, he and his wife purchased a home in Caribou, Maine. Mr. Hebert subsequently submitted a claim for certain costs associated with this purchase. Among the listed costs was one in the amount of $1250 for a "release of lien." A letter in the record from Mr. Hebert's lender explains that, prior to settlement, it was discovered that the property to be purchased by the Heberts was subject to a lien held by the State of Maine, Division of Human Services. Although the sellers were responsible for removing the lien, they were not able to meet this financial obligation. The lender, consequently, notified Mr. and Mrs. Hebert of the existence of the lien and advised them that it would not proceed with the purchase unless the lien was liquidated. With the assistance of their lender, the Heberts negotiated with a state official on the matter and eventually obtained a release of the lien in exchange for the payment of $1250. DFAS has declined to reimburse Mr. Hebert the $1250 paid to secure the release of the lien on his property. It argues that this is not a cost incident to the purchase of the real estate. It relies on provisions contained in the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) of the Department of Defense, specifically C14002-A.4.a(1)- (6). Mr. Herbert, as a civilian employee of the Department, is subject to these regulations. DFAS states that it has reviewed these provisions of the JTR but cannot find in them any authorization to reimburse an employee for a fee or charge similar to that which claimant is seeking here. Discussion The JTR provisions to which DFAS refers in its agency report read in part as follows: C14002 ALLOWABLE EXPENSES FOR SALE OR PURCHASE OF RESIDENCE A. Reimbursable Expense . . . . 4. Miscellaneous Expenses a. Reimbursable Items. The expenses listed below are reimbursable in connection with the sale and/or purchase of a residence, provided they are customarily paid by the seller of a residence in the locality of the old official PDS or by the purchaser of a residence at the new duty station . . . . (1) FHA [Federal Housing Administration] or VA [Veterans Administration] fee for the loan application; (2) loan origination fees and similar charges such as loan assumption fees and loan transfer fees . . . ; (3) cost of preparing credit reports; (4) mortgage and transfer taxes; (5) state revenue stamps; (6) other fees and charges similar in nature to those listed above . . . . JTR C14002-A.4 lists other reimbursable costs in addition to the first five listed above. It is important to note, however, that the provision in (6) which authorizes reimbursement of other fees and charges "similar in nature" refers only to the five types of costs which precede it. Claimant disagrees with the conclusion of DFAS that the JTR provisions found in C14002-A.4 do not authorize reimbursement for the cost of securing release of a lien on the property to be purchased. He argues that what is common to all of the reimbursable expenses listed in this section of the JTR is that they are all prerequisites to financing or to the transfer of property. Consequently, Mr. Hebert believes that an expense, such as payment of a lien, which in this case was clearly a prerequisite to financing and transfer of the property, is "similar in nature" to those listed in the regulation and, therefore, reimbursable. We find claimant s interpretation of this section of the JTR unreasonably broad. Under this interpretation, any expense requisite for the financing and/or purchase of property would be reimbursable. This clearly is not the intent of the regulation which lists specific costs and then provides that other fees and charges similar in nature to those listed above are also reimbursable. Claimant s interpretation renders the specific listing of costs in the regulation meaningless. We agree with the agency that the cost of liquidating a lien on the seller s property is not similar in nature to the costs listed in JTR C14002-A.4.(1)-(5). As to the additional specific costs listed as reimbursable in JTR C14002-A.4, the cost of liquidating a lien on the property sold or purchased is not among them. The agency is correct in concluding, therefore, that there is no authorization under applicable regulation to pay the claim in question. Claimant should bear in mind that, even if he were to prevail in his argument that the cost of liquidating the lien is similar in nature to costs listed in the JTR 14002-A.4, there still remains an insurmountable objection to his being reimbursed for it. As noted, this same regulation expressly states that the costs identified as reimbursable may be allowed provided they are customarily paid by the seller of a residence in the locality of the old official PDS or by the purchaser of a residence at the new duty station. In this case, Mr. Hebert, as purchaser of the property in question, has provided us with nothing which would indicate that it is customary in the Caribou, Maine area for the purchaser to pay off liens on the seller s property. Indeed, one would assume the opposite to be true and, in fact, the lender has advised that it was the responsibility of the sellers to remove the lien but they were not able to meet this financial obligation. In short, we find the agency s refusal to reimburse the cost of liquidating the lien to be reasonable and in accordance with regulation. We will not disturb it. Claimant has also asked that we review another issue, the agency s determination that the purchase price of his home was $31,000. This would become a critical issue only if we were to conclude that Mr. Herbert should be reimbursed for the cost of liquidating the lien on his seller s property. Had we granted that claim, full reimbursement would have been impossible if the purchase price were, as the agency contends, $31,000. This is because payment of this claim together with reimbursements already paid would have exceeded the maximum limit for reimbursement under the JTR, namely five percent of the purchase price of a residence at the new PDS. JTR C14002-B.2. Since the claim for reimbursement of the cost of the lien is denied, there is no need to discuss the additional issue of whether the purchase price of the house was, in fact, higher than $31,000. Mr. Hebert s claim for reimbursement of $1250 paid to secure the release of a lien on his seller s property is denied. ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge .