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

Filing

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 http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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