Zhang v. Zheng
This text of 2025 Ohio 1428 (Zhang v. Zheng) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Zhang v. Zheng, 2025-Ohio-1428.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
QINGYU ZHANG, : APPEAL NO. C-240430 TRIAL NO. A-2104403 Plaintiff-Appellant, :
vs. : OPINION
YUN ZHENG, :
and :
2000 WEST STREET, LLC, :
Defendants-Appellees. :
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 23, 2025
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Nicholas J. Pieczonka and Spencer S. Cowan, for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Frost Brown Todd LLP, Kevin R. Carter and Nathaniel L. Truitt, for Defendant- Appellee Yun Zheng,
Reardon & Chasar, LPA, Matthew R. Chasar and Joseph M. Sprafka, for Defendant- Appellee 2000 West Street, LLC. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BOCK, Judge. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Qingyu Zhang (“Qingyu”) filed suit against
defendants-appellees Yun Zheng (“Veronica”) and 2000 West Street, LLC, (“2000
West”) for fraud in the execution of an amendment to 2000 West’s operating
agreement. Because Qingyu cannot show fraud, we affirm the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Veronica and 2000 West.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} Qingyu is a 79-year-old Chinese immigrant who does not speak, read,
or write English. Veronica speaks English. The parties were friends and went into
business together.
{¶3} In 2017, Qingyu, Veronica, and another business partner, Jennifer Liu,
formed 2000 West, which is a real estate holding company that owns and rents out a
warehouse in Reading, Ohio. It collects rent, pays expenses, and distributes profits to
the members. New Diamond Trucking, a company owned by Qingyu, leased the
warehouse.
{¶4} Veronica alleged that she loaned Qingyu $500,000 and, as collateral for
the loan, Qingyu pledged all his shares—50 percent of the total shares—in 2000 West.
Qingyu testified in his deposition that Veronica did not loan him money. Instead,
according to Qingyu, Veronica intended to invest in his trucking company. The checks
written by Veronica totaling $500,000 were made payable to Qingyu’s trucking
company. Veronica, however, testified that Qingyu wanted the loan money deposited
into his company’s account and the money was intended as a loan, not an investment.
The record contains a promissory note signed by Qingyu.
{¶5} In 2019, Qingyu signed an amendment to the 2000 West Limited
Liability Company Agreement (“2019 Amendment”). In the 2019 Amendment, Qingyu
transferred his 50 percent ownership in 2000 West to Veronica. The document, which
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Qingyu admits he signed, certifies that Qingyu understands its English and Chinese
translations. Qingyu would later assert that Veronica and her husband (“Sean”)
procured his signature on the 2019 Amendment by fraud, telling him that the
document was a 2000 West tax document.
{¶6} Apparently, 2000 West’s land and building increased in value. Veronica
asserted that Qingyu and his son wanted to buy the property at a below-market value,
which she declined.
{¶7} In 2020, Qingyu signed an affidavit (“2020 Affidavit”) as part of an
unrelated lawsuit between Veronica and Liu. In the 2020 Affidavit, which Qingyu
signed in front of a California notary public, he stated that in 2019, “I arranged to
transfer to [Veronica] all of my ownership interests in 2000 West Street LLC. At the
time I negotiated this arrangement with [Veronica], [Veronica] held 30 percent of the
ownership interests in 2000 West Street LLC.” The 2020 Affidavit continued,
“Attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 1 is a copy of a document titled ‘Amendment No.
1 to the Limited Liability Company Agreement of 2000 West Street, LLC to Effect
Transfer of Membership Interest.’ The second page of that document contains a true
and accurate copy of my signature. I signed the document on October 1, 2019.”
{¶8} The 2020 Affidavit released “recovery of any amounts of the other
members” of 2000 West “as a result of any transaction involving my ownership
interests” in 2000 West. It purported to “release any claims I may have against the
other members of” 2000 West “that arise out of my involvement with” 2000 West.
{¶9} In December 2021, Qingyu sued Veronica and 2000 West, asserting two
causes of action: (1) fraud in the execution of the 2019 Amendment and (2) for a
declaratory judgment that the 2019 Amendment is void. Qingyu asserted that the 2019
Amendment was procured by fraud because Veronica and Sean told him it was a tax
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
document, taking advantage of his inability to read, write, or speak English. Qingyu
wanted the 2019 Amendment declared void for fraud so that he could regain his
interest in 2000 West.
{¶10} Veronica asserted as a defense the 2020 Affidavit, which contains the
release. In his deposition, Qingyu could not remember what Veronica had told him
about the contents of the 2020 Affidavit. He could not identify any misrepresentations
made about it, had not been forced to sign the 2020 Affidavit, and had not signed it
under duress. He acknowledged that he had a responsibility to learn what was in the
2020 Affidavit before he signed it.
{¶11} Veronica asserted counterclaims against Qingyu and his son, who was
involved in Qingyu’s business, negotiating and carrying out business on his father’s
behalf. Veronica later dismissed the claims against Qingyu’s son.
{¶12} Veronica and 2000 West moved for summary judgment on Qingyu’s
claims, which the trial court granted. The trial court stated at the summary-judgment
hearing that Qingyu could not identify any fraud in the execution of the 2020 Affidavit,
and since the 2020 Affidavit affirmed the contents of the 2019 Amendment, Qingyu’s
testimony demonstrated that he could not prove fraud. The court stated that the 2020
Affidavit confirmed that there was no fraud or misrepresentation in the execution of
the 2019 Amendment.
{¶13} Qingyu appealed.
II. Analysis
{¶14} Qingyu’s sole assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by
granting summary judgment because factual disputes remained “about the
enforceability of the Affidavit and Amendment.” This court reviews summary
judgment orders de novo. Carr v. Edn. Theatre Assn., 2023-Ohio-1681, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.);
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
City of Sharonville v. Am. Emp. Ins. Co., 2006-Ohio-2180, ¶ 5. Summary judgment is
appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,
no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated, the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can come only to a conclusion
that is adverse to the nonmoving party. Carr at ¶ 9; Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶15} Following a review of the record, we hold that under the circumstances,
Qingyu cannot show fraud because the 2020 Affidavit confirms the 2019 Amendment,
and he cannot show that the 2020 Affidavit was procured by any fraud or
misrepresentation. Qingyu testified that he could not recall any misrepresentations
made about the 2020 Affidavit, he did not sign it under duress, and he was not forced
to sign it.
{¶16} Moreover, Qingyu had time to reflect before signing the 2020 Affidavit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ohio 1428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zhang-v-zheng-ohioctapp-2025.