Photo of Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect Han Sheng Beh
Partner
hbeh@hinshawlaw.com
212-471-6238
View Bio
Sheng Beh defends clients in a variety of consumer and class action matters. He represents corporations—primarily financial institutions, debt …

Showing 4 posts by Han Sheng Beh.

Despite Acceleration of Debt Through Prior Dismissed Foreclosure Action, Bankruptcy Petition Tolls Statute of Limitations on Subsequent Action

April 18, 2018 by Han Sheng Beh

In Lubonty v. U.S. Bank National Association, a mortgagor sought to void a mortgage loan claiming that the six-year statute of limitations to foreclose had expired. The mortgagor had commenced multiple bankruptcy proceedings that trigged automatic stays and prevented foreclosure from proceeding for approximately four and a half years. New York law, CPLR § 204, extends the statute of limitations "[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition," and the trial court held that the six-year statute of limitations was extended by the time period during which the foreclosure was stalled through successive bankruptcy petitions. More ›

Invoking Bigfoot, the Eastern District of New York Highlights the Absurdity of New FDCPA Theories

December 22, 2017 by Han Sheng Beh

Suggesting that the latest FDCPA plaintiff's theories in New York have morphed into something other than consumer protection, Judge Glasser of the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY") penned an extensive (and rather scathing) decision detailing the abuse by plaintiffs-consumers (or more precisely, their counsel) in filing lawsuits for non-existent harms. More ›

Northern District of New York Dismisses another Avila Claim Based on Accrual of New York Pre-Judgment Interest

December 21, 2017 by Han Sheng Beh

One of the latest trends in the New York FDCPA space has been filing so called "Reverse Avila" cases, based on the Second Circuit's decision in Avila v. Riexinger and Assocs.. In Avila, the Second Circuit found that a debt collection letter violated the FDCPA because the letter failed to state that interest on the debt was accruing. Since Avila, new theories related to the accrual of interest claims have surfaced, including: (1) the "Reverse Avila" claim, and (2) claims requiring Avila safe harbor language in correspondence if there is any possibility (however small) that interest will accrue in the future--even if the debt was not actually increasing at the time of the correspondence. Courts have begun to deny these claims because they stretch the meaning of Avila into the realm of pure speculation. More ›

Forgiveness of Debt Can Prove Unforgiving, But a New Federal Court Decision Gives Cause for Optimism

May 23, 2017 by Han Sheng Beh

A federal court in New Jersey recently dismissed a putative class action filed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which had argued that it was deceptive conduct for a debt collector to inform the debtor that forgiveness of debt, in some circumstances, may be reportable to the Internal Revenue Service. The specific language included in the debt collector's letter was as follows: "We will report forgiveness of debt as required by the IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your case." More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives