Kenneth Bellamy

B-261639 May 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Since the provisions of the FTR have the force and effect of law. This Office is without authority to modify or waive those requirements. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). [1] The question asked is whether a transferred employee may be reimbursed for expenses incurred incident to the purchase of a lot when the final settlement on a newly constructed residence did not occur until after the maximum time limit for residence transactions had expired. Was transferred from Miami. To have a residence constructed on a lot that he was purchasing near his new duty station. His claim was rejected for the reason that the expenses of the lot purchase could not be processed until a residence is completed and settlement is concluded. View Decision Matter of: Kenneth Bellamy File: B-261639 Date: May 24, 1996 A transferred employee purchased a lot near his new duty station, settled on it, and then constructed a residence, but final settlement on the residence occurred after the third anniversary of the date the employee reported for duty. The employee requests that the 3-year time limit in Sec. 302-6.1(e), Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), be waived because litigation between the contractor and the employee caused the delay. Since the provisions of the FTR have the force and effect of law, this Office is without authority to modify or waive those requirements. William Buchanan, B-245281, Feb 20, 1992. A transferred employee purchased a lot near his new duty station, settled on it and then constructed a residence. Although final settlement on the residence occurred after the third anniversary of the date the employee reported for duty, the employee occupied the nearly completed residence as his commuting residence before the time limit expired. The allowable expenses he incurred at the lot purchase settlement may be reimbursed. Lloyd E. McLaughlin, B-189997, Feb. 1, 1978. DECISION This decision responds to a request from the Manager, Financial Services Branch, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). [1] The question asked is whether a transferred employee may be reimbursed for expenses incurred incident to the purchase of a lot when the final settlement on a newly constructed residence did not occur until after the maximum time limit for residence transactions had expired. We conclude that allowable expenses incurred to purchase the lot may be reimbursed, but not the expenses incurred at final settlement after the 3-year time limit had expired. BACKGROUND Mr. Kenneth Bellamy, an employee of the FAA, was transferred from Miami, Florida, to Hampton, Georgia, and reported for duty on April 22, 1990. Incident to that transfer, he executed a contract on April 2, 1991, to have a residence constructed on a lot that he was purchasing near his new duty station. On April 19, 1991, he went to settlement on the lot purchase and on June 4, 1991, filed a claim for the expenses associated with that purchase ($3,667.50). His claim was rejected for the reason that the expenses of the lot purchase could not be processed until a residence is completed and settlement is concluded. Although the construction contract called for the residence to be completed in 6 months, it was only two-thirds complete nearly a year later. Mr. Bellamy discharged the contractor for failing to comply with the terms of the contract and arranged to complete the additional work on the residence on his own. During this time, he requested and received two successive 6-month extensions of the 2-year time limit, not to exceed April 22, 1993, the third anniversary of the date he reported for duty at his new permanent duty station. On October 19, 1992, Mr. and Mrs. Bellamy moved into the nearly completed residence and he began regularly commuting from there to his new duty station. In the meantime, the contractor sued Mr. and Mrs. Bellamy for damages claiming that he was wrongfully discharged. On March 11, 1994, a jury awarded damages to the contractor, but required the contractor to reconvey unencumbered title to the property to Mr. and Mrs. Bellamy. [2] They were thereafter able to obtain a final mortgage and completed the final settlement process later in 1994. On October 3, 1994, Mr. Bellamy submitted an additional claim for $34,724, which included the real estate expenses incurred at final settlement on the residence in 1994 ($4,784), and $29,940 in litigation expenses. The agency denied reimbursement because the time limit for settlement on the residence had expired on April 22, 1993. Mr. Bellamy appeals that action, asserting that the delays caused by the litigation were beyond his control and requests that the time limit contained in section 302-6.1(e) of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), [3] be waived. OPINION The statutory provisions governing reimbursement for real estate expenses incident to a transfer in 5 U.S.C. Sec.