Plaintiffs Allege Fraud Against Accounting Firm Over Unfulfilled Service Contract

In a legal dispute that highlights the complexities of contractual obligations and allegations of fraud, two plaintiffs are embroiled in a case against a group of defendants over an unfulfilled service agreement. The case was filed by Greg Vandemark and Patrick Hanley in the Hamilton County Municipal Court, with the judgment entry dated January 9, 2026. The defendants include Mark Reder, Mark Picard, and Sheldon Reder CPA’s Inc., collectively accused of failing to provide accounting services despite receiving payment.

The plaintiffs allege that they entered into a contract with the defendants on August 13, 2018, for professional accounting services. They claim to have paid a $5,000 retainer fee based on this agreement but did not receive any services or invoices in return. When attempts to recover their funds failed, Vandemark and Hanley pursued legal action under four theories: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and civil theft. The trial court initially dismissed their claims against Reder and Picard on the grounds that the contract was with Sheldon Reder CPA’s Inc., not the individual defendants. However, Vandemark and Hanley appealed this decision.

The appellate court found merit in some of the plaintiffs’ arguments. While it upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claim—since it determined that the agreement was indeed with Sheldon Reder CPA’s Inc.—it reversed the trial court’s decision regarding unjust enrichment, fraud, and civil theft claims. The appellate court noted that Vandemark and Hanley sufficiently alleged that Reder and Picard were liable for these claims due to their actions beyond just breaching a contract.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that Reder and Picard made false representations about providing services to induce them into paying the retainer fee. These allegations supported claims of promissory fraud since they suggested that at the time of making promises about future services, Reder and Picard had no intention to fulfill them. Furthermore, they accused Reder and Picard of converting funds for personal use without consent or beyond agreed terms—actions potentially constituting civil theft under Ohio law.

Vandemark and Hanley seek restitution for their losses through equitable relief such as unjust enrichment recovery due to alleged bad faith actions by Reder and Picard. They argue that despite having a contract with Sheldon Reder CPA’s Inc., fraudulent inducement occurred independently from contractual obligations.

Representing Vandemark and Hanley is attorney Ty L. Foster while Goering & Goering LLC’s Eric W. Goering along with Robbins Kelly Patterson & Tucker LPA’s Michael A. Galasso represent defendant Mark Reder; Cohen Todd Kite & Stanford LLC’s Jesse E Knowlden alongside John L O’Shea represent defendant Mark Picard; presiding over this appeal are Judges Crouse Zayas PJ Moore J Case ID C-250029