A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Ohio addresses a dispute involving a missing $40,000 payment for railroad materials, highlighting issues around email fraud and business responsibility in verifying payment instructions. The case centers on claims that a customer wired money to an incorrect account after receiving fraudulent instructions, raising questions about due diligence and contractual obligations in commercial transactions.
The complaint was filed by Yangtze Railroad Fasteners International USA Inc., doing business as Yangtze Railroad Materials, against Ohio Valley Trackwork Inc. (OVT) in Gallia County. The appeal was released on April 21, 2026, following a prior judgment from the Gallia County Court of Common Pleas that had ruled in favor of OVT on both breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
According to court documents, Yangtze is a Maryland corporation registered as a foreign corporation in Ohio and has supplied railroad materials for over three decades. Patrick Young, owner and CEO of Yangtze, testified that his company had done business with OVT for more than 20 years. In November 2022, Yangtze filed suit alleging OVT failed to pay for goods delivered under purchase order #7389 dated April 20, 2021. The total order was valued at $54,095.40; while one portion worth $12,440.70 was not disputed, the remaining $41,654.70 became the subject of litigation.
Evidence presented at trial included invoices showing OVT owed Yangtze $41,654.70 as of October 7, 2021. A check from OVT for $1,654.70 reduced the balance due to $40,000. Young testified that OVT still owed this amount and denied receiving any further payments.
The core issue arose when OVT’s office administrator Juanita Kaye Miller received emails appearing to be from Young requesting payment via wire transfer rather than check due to alleged issues with postal delivery and check processing. Miller followed these instructions and initiated a wire transfer for $44,806.70 to an account listed under ‘Lucille A Tierney DBA Yangtze Railroad Materials’ at Citizens Bank in New Mexico—a name and location unfamiliar to both parties based on their longstanding business relationship.
Miller testified she did not verify the new banking details by phone or other means before proceeding with the transfer because the emails came from Young’s usual address and nothing seemed amiss at first glance. However, after learning from Young that he never received these funds nor recognized Lucille A Tierney or Steven Maderson (names associated with the bank account), Miller acknowledged possible fraud but maintained she acted according to instructions received electronically.
Yangtze argued that regardless of how wiring instructions are received in modern commerce it is negligent ‘for a party to transmit a wire payment without first verifying the validity.’ The company claimed multiple red flags should have alerted OVT: unfamiliar beneficiary names; banking locations inconsistent with past practice; and discrepancies within email chains regarding signature blocks and headers.
OVT countered that all emails came from Young’s established address and its own IT investigation found no evidence of compromise on their side. Adam Little, co-owner at OVT who authorized the wire transfer, stated he believed they had paid what was owed since they sent funds per emailed directions.
The trial court initially sided with OVT after finding both parties’ IT departments reported no security breaches but concluded Yangtze bore greater responsibility since multiple people had access to Young’s email account and it appeared plausible that someone within or with access could have facilitated or enabled fraud.
On appeal however, Judge Michael D. Hess wrote that this conclusion was against ‘the manifest weight of the evidence.’ The appellate court noted there was no direct proof linking lax email security at Yangtze to the fraud nor any evidence explaining how fraudulent emails were generated beyond testimony about general risks such as spoofing or phishing attacks using visually similar characters.
Instead, the appellate decision emphasized obvious warning signs missed by OVT: ‘the bank location was New Mexico,’ whereas all previous dealings involved Maryland; ‘the account beneficiary was identified as Lucille A Tierney DBA Yangtze Railroad Materials,’ whom Miller admitted she had never dealt with during her entire tenure; and failure by OVT staff to verify new payment information by telephone or other means before sending substantial funds out-of-state.
As such, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s judgment on breach of contract—finding that ‘in resolving conflicts in the evidence,’ it was clear ‘the trial court clearly lost its way’ given these circumstances—and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. However, it affirmed dismissal on unjust enrichment grounds since Yangtze did not challenge this aspect on appeal.
Attorneys representing each side were Robert R. Rittenhouse (Lavelle and Rittenhouse LLC) for appellant Yangtze Railroad Fasteners International USA Inc., and Michael L. Barr (Barr Law Office LLC) for appellee Ohio Valley Trackwork Inc. The case is identified as Gallia Appellate No. 25CA3.
