Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                           __________________
 
                            January 24, 2001
                           __________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 15353-RELO
 
 
                 In the Matter of GEORGE H. NOLTE, JR.
 
 
        George H. Nolte, Jr., Gaithersburg, MD, Claimant.
 
        B.  S.   Jewitt,  Director,   Administration  and   Resource
   Management  Division, Headquarters  United  States Marine  Corps,
   Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Navy.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant, George  H. Nolte, Jr.,  is a civilian  employee of
   the  United  States Marine  Corps.    In  December 1998,  he  was
   transferred from his  official station in Kansas  City, Missouri,
   to  the Marine Corps Headquarters in  the Washington, D.C., area.
   In connection with the transfer,  Mr. Nolte submitted a claim for
   the  costs of selling his home  in Blue Springs, Missouri, at the
   old duty station.   He has asked  the Board to review  the Marine
   Corps' decision to disallow certain costs.
 
        Specifically, Mr.  Nolte questions  the disallowance of  two
   items.   First, he states that as a seller he was required to pay
   title insurance  in the amount of $580.   In addition, because he
   had moved to the Washington, D.C.,  area by the time he sold  his
   house in Missouri, he was forced  to pay express mail charges  to
   complete transactions  necessary to  close on  the house.   These
   charges, which were also disallowed  by the Marine Corps, totaled
   $60. 
 
   Title Insurance
 
        With  respect  to  the title  insurance  charges,  Mr. Nolte
   explains  that the agency mistakenly allowed  the amount of $196,
   which was paid by the buyer, while disallowing the 
   amount  of $580,  which was  paid by  claimant and  satisfied the
   requirement  for a  title search  or title  insurance.   He seeks
   payment of the difference, which is $384.
 
        In support of his claim for reimbursement of title insurance
   as  a seller's  expense, Mr.  Nolte  explains that  the state  of
   Missouri allows  either a title  search or the purchase  of title
   insurance  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  that  there   are  no
   outstanding  liens  or   encumbrances  on  the  property   to  be
   transferred.    In   both  Kansas  and  Missouri,  this  item  is
   customarily  paid by the seller  of property.   At the request of
   the Board,  claimant  submitted a  letter  from his  real  estate
   broker  explaining that  it is  customary  in that  area for  the
   seller to pay this expense.  The broker states that the charge is
   normal and customary and that the practice under which the seller
   pays title  insurance is pre-printed  into the text of  the local
   real  estate contracts, which are routinely  used on an area-wide
   basis.  The Marine  Corps has not submitted  any evidence to  the
   contrary.
 
 
        Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) paragraph C14002-A.3 provides
   that the costs of searching title or, if customarily furnished by
   the seller, of purchasing title insurance, are allowable expenses
   incurred in connection  with the sale of a residence.   Mr. Nolte
   has shown that this expense is customarily incurred by the seller
   in  the  area  where  his  former  official  station is  located.
   Accordingly,  this expense should  be allowed, to  the extent the
   amount  paid does not exceed  amounts customarily charged in this
   locality.  See, e.g., Wayne  E. Smith, GSBCA 14844-RELO, 99-1 BCA
      30,247;  Willard  T.  Mays, III,  GSBCA  14275-RELO,  98-1 BCA
     29,425 (1997).  
 
   Express Mail Expenses
 
        The  Marine Corps also declined to  reimburse the expense of
   using  special mailing services in connection with the closing on
   the sale  of claimant's house  in Missouri.  The  Corps concluded
   that this  charge was  part of the  financing cost  and thus  not
   reimbursable.   Mr. Nolte disagrees with this characterization of
   this expense -- he points  out that by the time he sold the house
   he had moved to the Washington,  D.C., area.  It would have  been
   inconvenient and costly to return  to his old official station to
   attend the closing on the house in person.  Thus, the special, or
   express, mailing services were necessary not to obtain financing,
   but  to ensure that  documents necessary to  proceed with closing
   were received  by claimant, and  signed and returned in  a secure
   and traceable manner.
 
        Although  the   Marine   Corps  is   correct  that   charges
   attributable  to   obtaining  financing  are  not   eligible  for
   reimbursement   under  applicable   regulations,  these   mailing
   expenses are not in the nature of  a charge imposed by the lender
   as a prerequisite to the extension of credit.  See, e.g., Richard
   A. Poisel, GSBCA 15330-RELO (Dec. 8, 2000).  Although there is no
   specific entitlement to  recover these costs under  an applicable
   statutory  or regulatory provision, the Board has recognized that
   to  the  extent   these  expenses  are  required   to  facilitate
   settlement, they may be reimbursable as incidental expenses under
   Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)  302-6.2(f) .  41 CFR  302-6.2(f)
   (2000);   Paula  K.  Fowler, GSBCA  15384-RELO  (Jan. 22,  2001);
   Ramiro   Ramirez,   GSBCA   14252-RELO,   98-1   BCA      29,702,
   reconsideration  denied, 98-2 BCA   29,797;  see Anna M. Wharton,
   GSBCA 15258-RELO, 00-2 BCA    31,011.  Accordingly, to the extent
   that claimant  can show  that these  expenses were necessary  for
   closing to proceed, the costs are recoverable.
   _________________________________
 
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge