TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
LEE COUNTY FLORIDA 

_____________________________________________________________
Warren T. Patriot,       )
         and             )
Sheri Patriot,           )
     Plaintiffs,         )                            
                         )  Case No. 07-CA-003666
                vs.      )                                                                     
                         ) PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
AmSouth Bancorporation,  )   (Jury Trial Demanded)
      and                )              
Regions Financial Corp,  )                                     
as successor to          )
AmSouth Bancorporation,  )
     Defendants.         )
____________________________________

COME NOW Plaintiffs, Warren T. Patriot and Sheri Patriot, and for their amended complaint, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.190, state and allege as follows:

  1. A Ft. Myers , Florida IRS Revenue Agent issued a IRC 7609 summons for Plaintiff Sheri Patriot’s confidential bank records which was issued to Defendant, AmSouth Bank, on May 2, 2005. A copy of said summons is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
  2. No subpoena was ever issued or served to Defendant for Plaintiff, Sheri Redeker Patriot’s, confidential financial records.
  3. A summons was issued to Defendant for Plaintiff Warren Patriot’s confidential bank records in the Fall of 2005. Mr. Patriot had no notification of the fact that his banking information had been summoned and released until more than a year had passed.
  4. Plaintiff Sheri Patriot’s Petition to Quash Summons was timely filed with the District Court in Ft. Myers , Florida , Civil Docket # 2:05-mc-9-FtM-29 SPC, and served on Defendant AmSouth Bank on May 23, 2005.
  5. Defendant disclosed the confidential financial records of both Plaintiffs to the IRS in October, 2005, without any subpoena or court order ever being issued to Defendant.
  6. Plaintiff Sheri Patriot’s Petition to Quash Summons was denied by the District Court on June 13, 2006, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that denial of the Petition to Quash in an unpublished opinion, Docket #06-14066-EE, dated Feb. 22, 2007. (A copy of said opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
  2. Plaintiffs are residents of Cape Coral , Lee County, Florida and have individual accounts at AmSouth Bank.
  3. Defendant, AmSouth Bancorporation, is a corporation incorporated in the State of Alabama , and maintains offices doing business in Lee County, Florida. On information and belief Regions Financial Corporation is in the process of acquiring AmSouth Bancorporation, Regions Financial Corporation is, thusly, named as a Defendant.
  4. Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all other parts of the complaint to the extent legally and ethically appropriate.
  2. As account holders with Defendant AmSouth Bank, Plaintiffs had a contractual relationship with Defendant.
  3. Plaintiffs formed an ‘implied’ contract with Defendant when they opened their bank accounts with the Defendant’s College Parkway , Ft. Myers Branch office on Aug. 13, 2003 (Mrs. Patriot) and Aug. 5, 1999 (Mr. Patriot). A copy of Plaintiffs’ signed AmSouth Bank signature cards and a clear bank are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
  4. Defendant’s compliance with the summons was in violation of Defendant’s privacy policy, which clearly states that the bank “will comply with customer information requests through properly executed court orders, such as garnishments, levies, summons, and subpoenas.” A copy of the Defendant’s privacy policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
  5. Plaintiffs relied on the Defendant’s privacy policy while making the decision to open accounts with AmSouth Bank. Ms. Patriot even went so far as to discuss the privacy policy exhibited on the Defendant’s web site with the bank representative at the College Parkway Branch office when she opened her account. Plaintiff’s discussion with the bank representative left her feeling secure that her deposits and private banking information would be kept confidential.
  6. Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiffs by disclosing confidential bank records without legal justification and in violation of Florida Statute 655.059(1)(e), as well as their own privacy policy.
  7. Plaintiffs were damaged and continue to be damaged by Defendant’s breach of contract. Plaintiff’s credit rating and the cost of credit have been seriously damaged as a result of Defendant’s actions, causing financial and other losses to Plaintiffs.

COUNT II – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all other parts of the complaint to the extent legally and ethically appropriate.
  2. Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs as account holders.
  3. Defendant’s privacy policy gave the Plaintiffs a reasonable expectation that their information would be kept private as discussed point 15 above.
  4. Defendant breached that fiduciary duty by disclosing confidential information and financial records to a third-party without legal justification and in violation of Florida Statute 655.059(1)(e), as well as the Defendant’s own privacy policy. A copy of Florida Statute 655.059(1)(e) is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
  5. Plaintiffs were damaged and continue to be damaged by Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty. Their credit rating and the cost of credit have been seriously damaged as a result of Defendant’s actions, causing financial and other losses.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENCE

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate all other parts of the complaint to the extent legally and ethically appropriate.
  2. Defendant, as a fiduciary, owed Plaintiffs a high duty of diligent care in protecting their confidential financial and personal information.
  3. The protection of Plaintiff’s personal and confidential financial records was under Defendant’s power and control.
  4. Sec. 1103(b) and 1105(2) of Title XI - Right to Financial Privacy state as follows:

    “A financial institution shall not release the financial records of a customer until the Government authority seeking such records certifies in writing to the financial institution that it has complied with the applicable provisions of this title.”

    “A Government authority may obtain financial records under section 1102(2) pursuant to an administrative subpoena or summons otherwise authorized by law only if a copy of the subpoena or summons has been served upon the customer or mailed to his last known address on or before the date on which the subpoena or summons was served on the financial institution together with the following notice which shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of the law enforcement inquiry:”

    Defendant negligently did not determine whether or not the IRS agent who had issued the summons had complied with this title. As stated in point 3 above, Plaintiff Warren Patriot never received a copy of the summons which had been issued to the Defendant in the Fall of 2005. More than one year past before Plaintiff found out about the summons.
  5. Defendant having been served with Plaintiff Sheri Patriot’s Petition to Quash said summons, had reason to know the validity of the summons was in question.
  6. Defendant negligently released Plaintiff Sheri Patriot’s confidential financial records prior to receiving notice of the resolution of her Petition to Quash. Plaintiffs were damaged and continue to be damaged by Defendant’s negligence.

    7. COUNT IV – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

  7. Plaintiffs incorporate all other parts of the complaint to the extent legally and ethically appropriate.
  8. Defendant’s privacy policy states that it “will comply with customer information requests through properly executed court orders, such as garnishments, levies, summons, and subpoenas”. (Emphasis added) Defendant misrepresented a material fact when it did not disclose in its privacy policy that it would also provide information requested without a properly executed court order. See Exhibit B.
  9. Defendant knew, or should have known, that said misrepresentation was false, deceptive and misleading, because Defendant would, and did, comply with a summons that was not court ordered, even after being made aware of the fact that the summons was not enforceable.
  10. Plaintiff hand delivered a letter regarding the validity of the summons on May 9, 2005, to Defendant’s College Parkway , Ft. Myers branch office. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Said letter was received by Sharon R. Mikosz, and was faxed to the legal department of AmSouth Bank in Birmingham , Alabama .
  11. Defendant mailed a response regarding the letter to Plaintiff on May 12, 2005. A copy of the responsive letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
  12. Plaintiff caused a fax to be sent to Anne Choat, Legal Processor for AmSouth Bank in Birmingham , Alabama , on May 18, 2005. A copy of said fax and transmission report is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
  13. Defendant chose to comply with the May, 2005 summons in October, 2005, even though Defendant had full knowledge that a Petition to Quash was waiting to receive its final order. A copy of Petition to Quash is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
  14. Further, with the letters, faxes, phone calls and the fact that Defendant was the Appellee in an 11th Circuit Court of Appeal case where the District Court Order denying the Petition to Quash was vacated and remanded on February 22, 2007, Defendant has had full knowledge that Defendant’s privacy policy was not being enforced since May 9, 2005.
  15. Plaintiff Warren Patriot wasn’t made aware of the fact that his banking information had been requested and sent until recently. .He discovered this fact when copies of the information Defendant sent the IRS were sent to Plaintiff by the IRS as a result of Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act request. A copy of the cover letter the IRS sent with the information is attached hereto as Exhibit I. A copy of an October 11, 2005, letter and Certificate of Origin sent to the IRS from the legal department of AmSouth Bank is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
  16. Defendant made its privacy policy available to its customers and the general public by posting said policy on Defendant’s web site; where Defendant knew it would be read and relied upon by customers and potential customers
  17. Plaintiff opened an account with Defendant in justifiable reliance on Defendant’s privacy policy and has suffered injury due to that reliance.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, Warren T. Patriot and Sheri Patriot, pray this Court find in their favor on the counts of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation for an award of damages in the amount of $4,000,000.00 for fees and costs, and for any other punitive relief to which they show themselves entitle, whether specifically prayed for or not.

By:________________________________
Warren T. Patriot, Plaintiff pro se
1776 Patriot Way
Cape Coral , FL

By:__________________________________
Sheri Patriot, Plaintiff pro se
1776 Patriot way
Cape Coral , FL