Conrad Scarry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Conrad Scarry. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 16-16356 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16356 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cv-81251-RLR CONRAD SCARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 3, 2017) Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-16356 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Conrad Scarry appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his initial complaint for failing to state a claim for relief and its order denying for futility his motion for leave to amend the complaint. The initial complaint alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) did not adequately respond to Korte & Wortman’s request for information under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A) because it failed to provide the telephone number of the entity that owns Scarry’s loan. The proposed amended complaint repeated this claim and added that Wells Fargo also violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(B) by not adequately responding to Scarry’s request for information related to loss-mitigation efforts and invoices related to property inspections, violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(1)(i) by failing to investigate the missing phone number, and violated 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(f)(2) by failing to send a notification of noncompliance. Loan servicers are not required to provide a loan owner’s telephone number under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A). Mejia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, — F. App’x —, 2017 WL 3396563 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2017). Nor must they furnish information unrelated to “servicing,” like the loss-mitigation and propertyinspection information requested here. See Hudgins v. Seterus, Inc., 192 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 1347–53 (S.D. Fla. 2016). Accordingly, Wells Fargo had no duty to investigate the information’s absence or send a noncompliance notification. AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?