# Unrue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · September 19, 2014 · 161 So. 3d 536

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4818450

## Case

- **Full name:** John J. UNRUE and Mary Rose Pileggi-Unrue v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and Amsouth Bank
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** September 19, 2014
- **Citations:** 161 So. 3d 536; 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14604; 2014 WL 4648205
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harris
- **Judges:** Evander, Harris, Lambert
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4818450

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a plaintiff has “an automatic right to amend the complaint once” before a responsive pleading is served

## Opinion text

HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I recognize the mandatory language contained in the rule permitting amendments. However, I believe the rule was designed for ordinary circumstances. I also recognize the public policy of condemning frivolous filings designed only for delay or harassment. In their complaint, Appellants allege that a document, which purports “that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. lent to plaintiff $269,884 and that said amount is secured by a mortgage document” should be removed from the record and declared void. The reason alleged is because Wells Fargo failed to respond to their unauthorized demand to “prove” the loan. There is no allegation in the complaint that Appellants did not borrow the money or had repaid the money or that their signatures were forged.
To suggest a circuit judge would void a mortgage because a bank failed to respond to a borrower’s unauthorized letter is an affront to the court and the attempt to serialize this frivolousness is an abuse of the rule.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4818450. Public record. Not legal advice.