Conrad v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 1:16-cv-12524

Background

Cindy Colbert Conrad executed a mortgage in 2005 on property in Boxford, MA; she defaulted December 1, 2013.
The mortgage was assigned through MERS to Wells Fargo (2013) and then to U.S. Bank (2016); U.S. Bank (via custodian Wells Fargo) had physical possession of the original note with an allonge endorsed in blank since at least August 25, 2015.
Wells Fargo/Caliber sent a 150-day right-to-cure notice by certified and first-class mail on January 30, 2015; plaintiff did not produce evidence she did not receive it.
Caliber, as servicer, recorded an affidavit of compliance under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, §§ 35B–35C, acting under a limited power of attorney from U.S. Bank dated August 5, 2014.
Foreclosure sale occurred September 12, 2016; plaintiff sued in state court alleging wrongful foreclosure (Counts 1–5) and destruction of property against purchaser Jonathan Cody (Count 6); defendants removed to federal court based on an FDCPA claim, which plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed.
Before discovery, U.S. Bank and Caliber moved for summary judgment on the foreclosure claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on Count One (wrongful foreclosure) and remanded Count Six (property-damage claim) to state court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants failed to provide the § 35A right-to-cure notice	Conrad says she never received the 150-day notice	Defendants produced uncontroverted proof the notice was sent by certified and first-class mail	Court: defendants proved notice was sent; plaintiff offered no admissible evidence to contradict — summary judgment for defendants on this point
Whether Caliber lacked authority to record the §§ 35B/35C affidavit	Conrad contended the affidavit was unauthorized; she pointed to a Wells Fargo POA attached to filings	Defendants produced a U.S. Bank POA (Aug. 5, 2014) authorizing Caliber to act for U.S. Bank, including recovery and legal processes	Court: U.S. Bank POA authorizes Caliber to file the affidavit; summary judgment for defendants
Whether U.S. Bank was the note-holder (standing to foreclose)	Conrad alleged there was no evidence U.S. Bank held the promissory note	Defendants produced the original note with an allonge endorsed in blank and evidence U.S. Bank (through custodian) possessed it since Aug. 25, 2015	Court: uncontroverted proof U.S. Bank held the note; summary judgment for defendants
Whether the federal court should retain jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim (Count Six)	Plaintiff did not contest retention in any meaningful way; Count Six is related only by identity of purchaser	Defendants initially removed based on FDCPA; FDCPA subsequently dismissed, leaving only state-law claims	Court: retained jurisdiction over Count One because merits were fully briefed and dismissal of federal claim occurred early; declined jurisdiction over Count Six because facts and issues are distinct — Count Six remanded to state court

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (general principle limited federal jurisdiction)
Fafel v. DiPaola, 399 F.3d 403 (1st Cir. 2005) (court must ensure subject-matter jurisdiction exists)
McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (federal courts’ duty to inquire sua sponte into jurisdiction)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (federal supplemental jurisdiction requires common nucleus of operative fact)
Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249 (1st Cir. 1996) (factors for retaining jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standards; nonmovant must produce affirmative evidence)
Eaton v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 462 Mass. 569 (Mass. 2012) (mortgagee must hold underlying note or be authorized agent to foreclose)