Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Letter of Credit Reimbursement Obligation As part of an agreement to service the loans in 11 securitization trusts, the Company has an obligation to reimburse a third party for the final $165.0 million drawn under LOCs issued by such third party as credit enhancements to such trusts. The total amount available on these LOCs for these trusts was $262.4 million at June 30, 2015. The securitization trusts will draw on these LOCs if there are insufficient cash flows from the underlying collateral to pay the debt holders of the securitization trusts. Based on the Company’s estimates of the underlying performance of the collateral in the securitization trusts, the Company does not expect that the final $165.0 million of capacity under the LOCs will be drawn and, therefore, no liability for the fair value of this obligation has been recorded on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets, although actual performance may differ from this estimate in the future. Mandatory Clean-Up Call Obligation The Company is obligated to exercise the mandatory clean-up call obligations assumed as part of an agreement to acquire the rights to service the loans in the Non-Residual Trusts. The Company is required to call these securitizations when each loan pool falls to 10% of the original principal amount and expects to begin to make such calls in 2017 and continuing through 2019. The total outstanding balance of the residential loans expected to be called at the respective call dates is $419.3 million. Unfunded Commitments Reverse Mortgage Segment The Company had floating-rate reverse loans in which the borrowers have additional borrowing capacity of $1.3 billion and similar commitments on fixed-rate reverse loans of $1.3 million at June 30, 2015. This additional borrowing capacity is primarily in the form of undrawn lines-of-credit, with the balance available on a scheduled or unscheduled payment basis. The Company also had short-term commitments to lend $131.1 million and commitments to purchase and sell loans totaling $7.1 million and $141.8 million, respectively, at June 30, 2015. Originations Segment The Company had short-term commitments to lend $3.6 billion and commitments to purchase loans totaling $98.5 million at June 30, 2015. In addition, the Company had commitments to sell $5.7 billion and purchase $1.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities at June 30, 2015. Other The Company has entered into an agreement to contribute cash and other assets in exchange for equity interests in WCO. The Company's total capital commitment is $20.0 million, of which $9.3 million remained unfunded at June 30, 2015. Mortgage Origination Contingencies The Company sells substantially all of its originated or purchased mortgage loans into the secondary market for securitization or to private investors as whole loans. The Company sells conventional conforming and government-backed mortgage loans through agency-sponsored securitizations in which mortgage-backed securities are created and sold to third-party investors. The Company also sells non-conforming mortgage loans to private investors. In doing so, representations and warranties regarding certain attributes of the loans are made to the third-party investor. Subsequent to the sale, if it is determined that the loans sold are in breach of these representations or warranties, the Company generally has an obligation to repurchase the loan for the unpaid principal balance, accrued interest, and related advances and indemnify the purchaser. The Company’s credit loss may be reduced by any recourse it has to correspondent lenders that, in turn, have sold such residential loans to the Company and breached similar or other representations and warranties. The Company's representations and warranties are generally not subject to stated limits of exposure with the exception of certain loans originated under HARP, which limits exposure based on payment history of the loan. At June 30, 2015, the Company’s maximum exposure to repurchases due to potential breaches of representations and warranties was $41.1 billion, and was based on the original unpaid principal balance of loans sold from the beginning of 2013 through June 30, 2015 adjusted for voluntary payments made by the borrower on loans for which the Company performs servicing. A majority of the Company's loan sales were servicing retained. The Company’s obligations vary based upon the nature of the repurchase demand and the current status of the mortgage loan. The Company’s estimate of the liability associated with representations and warranties exposure was $15.4 million at June 30, 2015 and is included in originations liability as part of payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. Servicing Contingencies The Company services loans it originated and securitized and also services loans on behalf of securitization trusts or other credit owners. The Company’s servicing obligations are set forth in industry regulations established by HUD and the FHA and in servicing and sub-servicing agreements with the applicable counterparties, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other credit owners. Both the regulations and the servicing agreements provide that the servicer may be liable for failure to perform its servicing obligations and further provide remedies for certain servicer breaches. Reverse Mortgage Loans Subsequent to the completion of the acquisition of RMS, the Company discovered a failure by RMS to record certain liabilities to HUD, FHA, and/or credit owners related to servicing errors by RMS. FHA regulations provide that servicers meet a series of event-specific timeframes during the default, foreclosure, conveyance, and mortgage insurance claim cycles. Failure to timely meet any processing deadline may stop the accrual of debenture interest otherwise payable in satisfaction of a claim under the FHA mortgage insurance contract and the servicer may be responsible to HUD for debenture interest that is not self-curtailed by the servicer, or for making the credit owner whole for any interest curtailed by FHA due to not meeting the required event-specific timeframes. The Company had a curtailment obligation liability of $93.9 million at June 30, 2015 related to the foregoing which reflects management’s best estimate of the probable incurred claim. The curtailment liability is recorded in payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company assumed $46.0 million of this liability through the acquisition of RMS, which resulted in a corresponding offset to goodwill and deferred tax assets. During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recorded a provision, net of expected third party recoveries, related to the curtailment liability of $24.1 million. The Company has potential estimated maximum financial statement exposure for an additional $134.1 million related to similar claims, which are reasonably possible, but which the Company believes are primarily the responsibility of third parties (e.g., prior servicers and/or credit owners). The Company’s potential exposure to a substantial portion of this additional risk relates to the possibility that such third parties may claim that the Company is responsible for the servicing liability or that the Company exacerbated an existing failure by the third party. The actual amount, if any, of this exposure is difficult to estimate and requires significant management judgment as curtailment obligations are an emerging industry issue. The Company is pursuing and will continue to pursue mitigation efforts to reduce both the direct exposure and the reasonably possible third-party-related exposure. Mortgage Loans The Company had a curtailment obligation liability of $8.3 million at June 30, 2015 related to mortgage loan servicing which it assumed through an acquisition of servicing rights during the three months ended June 30, 2015. The Company is obligated to service the related mortgage loans in accordance with Ginnie Mae requirements, including repayment to credit owners for corporate advances and interest curtailment. The curtailment liability is recorded in payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. Litigation and Regulatory Matters In the ordinary course of business, the Parent Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in, or parties to, many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. Many of these actions and proceedings are based on alleged violations of consumer protection laws governing the Company's servicing and origination activities. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Company. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of the Company’s activities. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting outcomes of such litigation, regulatory and governmental matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate restitution, penalties or damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be. Reserves are established for pending or threatened litigation, regulatory and governmental matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation and other legal proceedings, it is not always possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of a probable loss, and the Company may estimate a range of possible loss for consideration in its estimated accruals. The estimates are based upon currently available information, including advice of counsel, and involve significant judgment taking into account the varying stages and inherent uncertainties of such matters. Accordingly, the Company’s estimates may change from time to time and such changes may be material to the consolidated financial results. Given the inherent uncertainties and status of the Company’s outstanding legal and regulatory matters, the range of reasonably possible losses cannot be estimated for all matters; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. For matters involving a probable loss where the Company can estimate the range but not a specific loss amount, the aggregate estimated amount of reasonably possible losses in excess of the recorded liability was $0 to approximately $2.7 million at June 30, 2015. It is also reasonably possible that the Company could incur no losses in excess of amounts accrued. As available information changes, the matters for which the Company is able to estimate, as well as the estimates themselves, will be adjusted accordingly. At June 30, 2015, the Company’s recorded reserves associated with legal and regulatory contingencies were approximately $33 million; however, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s pending or threatened litigation, claims or assessments will not result in losses in excess of the Company’s recorded reserves. As a result, the ultimate resolution of any particular legal matter, or matters, could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for the period in which such matter is resolved. The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters: In response to a CID from the FTC issued in November 2010 and a CID from the CFPB in September 2012, Green Tree Servicing produced documents and other information concerning a wide range of its loan servicing operations. On October 7, 2013, the CFPB notified Green Tree Servicing that the CFPB’s staff was considering recommending that the CFPB take action against Green Tree Servicing for alleged violations of various federal consumer financial laws. On February 20, 2014, the FTC and CFPB staff advised Green Tree Servicing that they had sought authority to bring an enforcement action and negotiate a resolution related to alleged violations of various federal consumer financial laws. In April 2014, Green Tree Servicing began discussions with the FTC and CFPB staffs to determine if a settlement of the proposed action could be achieved. On February 16, 2015, Green Tree Servicing informed the agencies that it would agree to the terms of a proposed stipulated order that, subject to approval by the FTC, the CFPB and the court, would settle the matters arising from the FTC and CFPB investigation. The FTC and CFPB approved the proposed order, and on April 21, 2015, the FTC, CFPB, and Green Tree Servicing filed the proposed order with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, which subsequently approved it. Under the order, Green Tree Servicing, without admitting or denying the allegations in a complaint filed by the FTC and CFPB, agreed to pay: (i) $18 million for alleged misrepresentations relating to payment methods that entail convenience fees; (ii) $30 million for alleged misrepresentations related primarily to the time it would take to review short sale requests and for alleged delays in processing loan modifications in servicing transfers; and (iii) a $15 million civil money penalty. The Company accrued the full amounts required under the order in the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014 and paid amounts due during the second quarter of 2015. In October 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the HUD Office of Inspector General requesting documents and other information concerning (i) the curtailment of interest payments on HECMs serviced or sub-serviced by RMS, and (ii) RMS’ contractual arrangements with a third-party vendor for the management and disposition of real estate owned properties. Since that time, the Company has been cooperating with an investigation relating to these issues by the Department of Justice and the HUD Office of Inspector General. In April 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion by the Department of Justice to partially intervene in United States ex. rel. McDonald v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 8:13-CV-1705-T23-TGW, which is a civil qui tam complaint that had been filed under seal and that named the Company, RMS, other subsidiaries of the Company, and others, as defendants. This complaint asserts claims under the False Claims Act and Florida law and alleges, among other things, that RMS did not comply with certain HUD regulations applicable to the servicing of reverse mortgages and improperly sought interest payments from HUD. Discussions between the Company and representatives of the Department of Justice and HUD concerning this matter have continued to progress and the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement, which the Company expects will be finalized in the near-term. The Company expects that the agreement will settle the claims against the Company without an admission or finding of liability on the part of the Company, and that the Company will agree to make a financial payment to the United States. The Company does not expect that any financial payment by the Company as part of the anticipated settlement will exceed the accruals that the Company has included in its consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2015. In the event that the ongoing discussions do not result in the anticipated resolution, the Company expects to defend vigorously against the claims, as to which the Company believes it has legal and factual defenses. Resolutions of investigations or lawsuits, or findings of liability, under the False Claims Act and other federal statutes including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 may result in potentially significant financial consequences, including the payment of up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government and civil penalties. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter, or that any consequences will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O’Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O’Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company’s internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing, the liabilities associated with the Company’s acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs. O’Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims relating to statements about the Company’s acquisition of RMS. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that, among other things, added certain allegations concerning the Company’s settlement with the FTC and CFPB. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due on August 30, 2015. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. From time to time, federal and state authorities investigate or examine aspects of the Company's business activities, such as its mortgage origination, servicing, collection and bankruptcy practices, among other things. It is the Company's general policy to cooperate with such investigations, and the Company has been responding to information requests and otherwise cooperating with various ongoing investigations and examinations by such authorities. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the ongoing proceedings and cannot provide assurances that investigations and examinations will not have a material adverse affect on the Company. Walter Energy Matters The Company may become liable for U.S. federal income taxes allegedly owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years. Under federal law, each member of a consolidated group for U.S. federal income tax purposes is severally liable for the federal income tax liability of each other member of the consolidated group for any year in which it was a member of the consolidated group at any time during such year. Certain former subsidiaries of the Company (which were subsequently merged or otherwise consolidated with certain current subsidiaries of the Company) were part of the Walter Energy consolidated tax group prior to our spin-off from Walter Energy on April 17, 2009. As a result, if the Walter Energy consolidated group’s federal income taxes (including penalties and interest) for such tax years are not discharged by Walter Energy or otherwise, the Company could be liable for such amounts. Walter Energy Tax Matters. According to Walter Energy’s Form 10-Q (the “Walter Energy Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (filed with the SEC on August 6, 2015), certain tax matters with respect to certain tax years prior to and including the year of our spin-off from Walter Energy remain unresolved, including certain tax matters relating to: (i) a “proof of claim” for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to Walter Energy’s fiscal years ended August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994, which was filed by the IRS in connection with Walter Energy’s bankruptcy filing on December 27, 1989 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; (ii) an IRS audit of Walter Energy’s federal income tax returns for the years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2008; and (iii) an IRS audit of Walter Energy’s federal income tax returns for the 2009 through 2013 tax years. It is unclear how these tax matters will be impacted, if at all, by Walter Energy’s recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Alabama, which is discussed below. Walter Energy 2015 Bankruptcy Filing. On July 15, 2015, Walter Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama and, in connection therewith, filed a motion to assume a pre-petition restructuring support agreement between Walter Energy and certain holders of its funded indebtedness. Under this agreement, the parties thereto will pursue confirmation of a plan of reorganization (the “plan”) unless certain events occur, in which case Walter Energy will abandon the plan process and pursue a sale of its assets in accordance with Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. There is no indication in the plan of the amount of anticipated tax claims. According to the Walter Energy Form 10-Q, Walter Energy (i) intends to seek a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding federal tax issues including, to the extent possible, issues relating to the “proof of claim” described above, in connection with its recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Alabama and (ii) expects that any plan would provide mechanisms for the treatment of potential income tax liabilities. The Company cannot predict whether or to what extent it may become liable for federal income taxes of the Walter Energy consolidated group, in part because it believes, based on publicly available information, that: (i) the amount of taxes owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group for the periods from 1983 through 2009 remains unresolved; (ii) in light of Walter Energy’s 2015 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, it is unclear (a) whether Walter Energy will be obligated or able to pay any or all of such amounts owed and (b) what portion of the IRS claims against the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years are attributable to tax, interest and/or penalties and what priority, if any, the IRS will receive in the Alabama bankruptcy proceedings with respect to its claims against Walter Energy; and (iii) it cannot predict whether, in the event Walter Energy does not discharge all tax obligations for the consolidated group, the IRS will seek to enforce tax claims against former members of the Walter Energy consolidated group. Further, because the Company cannot currently estimate its liability, if any, relating to the federal income tax liability of Walter Energy’s consolidated tax group during the tax years in which it was a part of such group, it cannot determine whether such liabilities, if any, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity and/or results of operations. Tax Separation Agreement. In connection with our spin-off from Walter Energy, the Company and Walter Energy entered into a Tax Separation Agreement, dated April 17, 2009. Notwithstanding any several liability the Company may have under federal tax law described above, under the Tax Separation Agreement, Walter Energy agreed to retain full liability for all U.S. federal income or state combined income taxes of the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years (including any interest, additional taxes or penalties applicable thereto), subject to limited exceptions. It is unclear, however, whether claims made by the Company under the Tax Separation Agreement would be enforceable against Walter Energy in connection with, or following the conclusion of, the various Walter Energy bankruptcy proceedings described above or if such claims would be rejected or disallowed under bankruptcy law, and whether Walter Energy will have the ability to satisfy in part or in full the amount of any claims made by the Company under the Tax Separation Agreement. Furthermore, the Tax Separation Agreement provides that Walter Energy has, in its sole discretion, the exclusive right to represent the interests of the consolidated group in any audit, court proceeding or settlement of a claim with the IRS for the tax years in which certain of the Company’s former subsidiaries were a member of the Walter Energy consolidated group for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, the Tax Separation Agreement obligates the Company to take certain tax positions that are consistent with those taken historically by Walter Energy. In the event the Company does not take such positions, it could be liable to Walter Energy to the extent our failure to do so results in an increased tax liability or the reduction of any tax asset of Walter Energy. These arrangements may result in conflicts of interests between the Company and Walter Energy, particularly with regard to the Walter Energy bankruptcy proceedings described above. Lastly, according to its public filings, Walter Energy’s 2009 tax year is currently under audit. Accordingly, if it is determined that certain distribution taxes and other amounts are owed related to the Company's spin-off from Walter Energy in 2009, the Company may be liable under the Tax Separation Agreement for all or a portion of such amounts. The Company is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses for the matter described above.

Commitments and Contingencies

Letter of Credit Reimbursement Obligation

As part of an agreement to service the loans in 11 securitization trusts, the Company has an obligation to reimburse a third party for the final $165.0 million drawn under LOCs issued by such third party as credit enhancements to such trusts. The total amount available on these LOCs for these trusts was $262.4 million at June 30, 2015. The securitization trusts will draw on these LOCs if there are insufficient cash flows from the underlying collateral to pay the debt holders of the securitization trusts. Based on the Company’s estimates of the underlying performance of the collateral in the securitization trusts, the Company does not expect that the final $165.0 million of capacity under the LOCs will be drawn and, therefore, no liability for the fair value of this obligation has been recorded on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets, although actual performance may differ from this estimate in the future.

Mandatory Clean-Up Call Obligation

The Company is obligated to exercise the mandatory clean-up call obligations assumed as part of an agreement to acquire the rights to service the loans in the Non-Residual Trusts. The Company is required to call these securitizations when each loan pool falls to 10% of the original principal amount and expects to begin to make such calls in 2017 and continuing through 2019. The total outstanding balance of the residential loans expected to be called at the respective call dates is $419.3 million.

Unfunded Commitments

Reverse Mortgage Segment

The Company had floating-rate reverse loans in which the borrowers have additional borrowing capacity of $1.3 billion and similar commitments on fixed-rate reverse loans of $1.3 million at June 30, 2015. This additional borrowing capacity is primarily in the form of undrawn lines-of-credit, with the balance available on a scheduled or unscheduled payment basis. The Company also had short-term commitments to lend $131.1 million and commitments to purchase and sell loans totaling $7.1 million and $141.8 million, respectively, at June 30, 2015.

Originations Segment

The Company had short-term commitments to lend $3.6 billion and commitments to purchase loans totaling $98.5 million at June 30, 2015. In addition, the Company had commitments to sell $5.7 billion and purchase $1.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities at June 30, 2015.

Other

The Company has entered into an agreement to contribute cash and other assets in exchange for equity interests in WCO. The Company's total capital commitment is $20.0 million, of which $9.3 million remained unfunded at June 30, 2015.

Mortgage Origination Contingencies

The Company sells substantially all of its originated or purchased mortgage loans into the secondary market for securitization or to private investors as whole loans. The Company sells conventional conforming and government-backed mortgage loans through agency-sponsored securitizations in which mortgage-backed securities are created and sold to third-party investors. The Company also sells non-conforming mortgage loans to private investors. In doing so, representations and warranties regarding certain attributes of the loans are made to the third-party investor. Subsequent to the sale, if it is determined that the loans sold are in breach of these representations or warranties, the Company generally has an obligation to repurchase the loan for the unpaid principal balance, accrued interest, and related advances and indemnify the purchaser. The Company’s credit loss may be reduced by any recourse it has to correspondent lenders that, in turn, have sold such residential loans to the Company and breached similar or other representations and warranties.

The Company's representations and warranties are generally not subject to stated limits of exposure with the exception of certain loans originated under HARP, which limits exposure based on payment history of the loan. At June 30, 2015, the Company’s maximum exposure to repurchases due to potential breaches of representations and warranties was $41.1 billion, and was based on the original unpaid principal balance of loans sold from the beginning of 2013 through June 30, 2015 adjusted for voluntary payments made by the borrower on loans for which the Company performs servicing. A majority of the Company's loan sales were servicing retained.

The Company’s obligations vary based upon the nature of the repurchase demand and the current status of the mortgage loan. The Company’s estimate of the liability associated with representations and warranties exposure was $15.4 million at June 30, 2015 and is included in originations liability as part of payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.

Servicing Contingencies

The Company services loans it originated and securitized and also services loans on behalf of securitization trusts or other credit owners. The Company’s servicing obligations are set forth in industry regulations established by HUD and the FHA and in servicing and sub-servicing agreements with the applicable counterparties, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other credit owners. Both the regulations and the servicing agreements provide that the servicer may be liable for failure to perform its servicing obligations and further provide remedies for certain servicer breaches.

Reverse Mortgage Loans

Subsequent to the completion of the acquisition of RMS, the Company discovered a failure by RMS to record certain liabilities to HUD, FHA, and/or credit owners related to servicing errors by RMS. FHA regulations provide that servicers meet a series of event-specific timeframes during the default, foreclosure, conveyance, and mortgage insurance claim cycles. Failure to timely meet any processing deadline may stop the accrual of debenture interest otherwise payable in satisfaction of a claim under the FHA mortgage insurance contract and the servicer may be responsible to HUD for debenture interest that is not self-curtailed by the servicer, or for making the credit owner whole for any interest curtailed by FHA due to not meeting the required event-specific timeframes. The Company had a curtailment obligation liability of $93.9 million at June 30, 2015 related to the foregoing which reflects management’s best estimate of the probable incurred claim. The curtailment liability is recorded in payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. The Company assumed $46.0 million of this liability through the acquisition of RMS, which resulted in a corresponding offset to goodwill and deferred tax assets. During the six months ended June 30, 2015, the Company recorded a provision, net of expected third party recoveries, related to the curtailment liability of $24.1 million. The Company has potential estimated maximum financial statement exposure for an additional $134.1 million related to similar claims, which are reasonably possible, but which the Company believes are primarily the responsibility of third parties (e.g., prior servicers and/or credit owners). The Company’s potential exposure to a substantial portion of this additional risk relates to the possibility that such third parties may claim that the Company is responsible for the servicing liability or that the Company exacerbated an existing failure by the third party. The actual amount, if any, of this exposure is difficult to estimate and requires significant management judgment as curtailment obligations are an emerging industry issue. The Company is pursuing and will continue to pursue mitigation efforts to reduce both the direct exposure and the reasonably possible third-party-related exposure.

Mortgage Loans

The Company had a curtailment obligation liability of $8.3 million at June 30, 2015 related to mortgage loan servicing which it assumed through an acquisition of servicing rights during the three months ended June 30, 2015. The Company is obligated to service the related mortgage loans in accordance with Ginnie Mae requirements, including repayment to credit owners for corporate advances and interest curtailment. The curtailment liability is recorded in payables and accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

In the ordinary course of business, the Parent Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in, or parties to, many pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. Many of these actions and proceedings are based on alleged violations of consumer protection laws governing the Company's servicing and origination activities. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against the Company.

The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is also subject to regulatory and governmental examinations, information requests and subpoenas, inquiries, investigations and threatened legal actions and proceedings. In connection with formal and informal inquiries, the Company receives numerous requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of the Company’s activities.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting outcomes of such litigation, regulatory and governmental matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate restitution, penalties or damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to each pending matter may be.

Reserves are established for pending or threatened litigation, regulatory and governmental matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation and other legal proceedings, it is not always possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of a probable loss, and the Company may estimate a range of possible loss for consideration in its estimated accruals. The estimates are based upon currently available information, including advice of counsel, and involve significant judgment taking into account the varying stages and inherent uncertainties of such matters. Accordingly, the Company’s estimates may change from time to time and such changes may be material to the consolidated financial results. Given the inherent uncertainties and status of the Company’s outstanding legal and regulatory matters, the range of reasonably possible losses cannot be estimated for all matters; therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. For matters involving a probable loss where the Company can estimate the range but not a specific loss amount, the aggregate estimated amount of reasonably possible losses in excess of the recorded liability was $0 to approximately $2.7 million at June 30, 2015. It is also reasonably possible that the Company could incur no losses in excess of amounts accrued. As available information changes, the matters for which the Company is able to estimate, as well as the estimates themselves, will be adjusted accordingly.

At June 30, 2015, the Company’s recorded reserves associated with legal and regulatory contingencies were approximately $33 million; however, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of the Company’s pending or threatened litigation, claims or assessments will not result in losses in excess of the Company’s recorded reserves. As a result, the ultimate resolution of any particular legal matter, or matters, could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for the period in which such matter is resolved.

The following is a description of certain litigation and regulatory matters:

In response to a CID from the FTC issued in November 2010 and a CID from the CFPB in September 2012, Green Tree Servicing produced documents and other information concerning a wide range of its loan servicing operations. On October 7, 2013, the CFPB notified Green Tree Servicing that the CFPB’s staff was considering recommending that the CFPB take action against Green Tree Servicing for alleged violations of various federal consumer financial laws. On February 20, 2014, the FTC and CFPB staff advised Green Tree Servicing that they had sought authority to bring an enforcement action and negotiate a resolution related to alleged violations of various federal consumer financial laws. In April 2014, Green Tree Servicing began discussions with the FTC and CFPB staffs to determine if a settlement of the proposed action could be achieved. On February 16, 2015, Green Tree Servicing informed the agencies that it would agree to the terms of a proposed stipulated order that, subject to approval by the FTC, the CFPB and the court, would settle the matters arising from the FTC and CFPB investigation. The FTC and CFPB approved the proposed order, and on April 21, 2015, the FTC, CFPB, and Green Tree Servicing filed the proposed order with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, which subsequently approved it. Under the order, Green Tree Servicing, without admitting or denying the allegations in a complaint filed by the FTC and CFPB, agreed to pay: (i) $18 million for alleged misrepresentations relating to payment methods that entail convenience fees; (ii) $30 million for alleged misrepresentations related primarily to the time it would take to review short sale requests and for alleged delays in processing loan modifications in servicing transfers; and (iii) a $15 million civil money penalty. The Company accrued the full amounts required under the order in the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014 and paid amounts due during the second quarter of 2015.

In October 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the HUD Office of Inspector General requesting documents and other information concerning (i) the curtailment of interest payments on HECMs serviced or sub-serviced by RMS, and (ii) RMS’ contractual arrangements with a third-party vendor for the management and disposition of real estate owned properties. Since that time, the Company has been cooperating with an investigation relating to these issues by the Department of Justice and the HUD Office of Inspector General. In April 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion by the Department of Justice to partially intervene in United States ex. rel. McDonald v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 8:13-CV-1705-T23-TGW, which is a civil qui tam complaint that had been filed under seal and that named the Company, RMS, other subsidiaries of the Company, and others, as defendants. This complaint asserts claims under the False Claims Act and Florida law and alleges, among other things, that RMS did not comply with certain HUD regulations applicable to the servicing of reverse mortgages and improperly sought interest payments from HUD. Discussions between the Company and representatives of the Department of Justice and HUD concerning this matter have continued to progress and the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement, which the Company expects will be finalized in the near-term. The Company expects that the agreement will settle the claims against the Company without an admission or finding of liability on the part of the Company, and that the Company will agree to make a financial payment to the United States. The Company does not expect that any financial payment by the Company as part of the anticipated settlement will exceed the accruals that the Company has included in its consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2015. In the event that the ongoing discussions do not result in the anticipated resolution, the Company expects to defend vigorously against the claims, as to which the Company believes it has legal and factual defenses. Resolutions of investigations or lawsuits, or findings of liability, under the False Claims Act and other federal statutes including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 may result in potentially significant financial consequences, including the payment of up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government and civil penalties. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter, or that any consequences will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O’Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O’Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company’s internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing, the liabilities associated with the Company’s acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s securities between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs. O’Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims relating to statements about the Company’s acquisition of RMS. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that, among other things, added certain allegations concerning the Company’s settlement with the FTC and CFPB. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is due on August 30, 2015. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the putative shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

From time to time, federal and state authorities investigate or examine aspects of the Company's business activities, such as its mortgage origination, servicing, collection and bankruptcy practices, among other things. It is the Company's general policy to cooperate with such investigations, and the Company has been responding to information requests and otherwise cooperating with various ongoing investigations and examinations by such authorities. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any of the ongoing proceedings and cannot provide assurances that investigations and examinations will not have a material adverse affect on the Company.

Walter Energy Matters

The Company may become liable for U.S. federal income taxes allegedly owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years. Under federal law, each member of a consolidated group for U.S. federal income tax purposes is severally liable for the federal income tax liability of each other member of the consolidated group for any year in which it was a member of the consolidated group at any time during such year. Certain former subsidiaries of the Company (which were subsequently merged or otherwise consolidated with certain current subsidiaries of the Company) were part of the Walter Energy consolidated tax group prior to our spin-off from Walter Energy on April 17, 2009. As a result, if the Walter Energy consolidated group’s federal income taxes (including penalties and interest) for such tax years are not discharged by Walter Energy or otherwise, the Company could be liable for such amounts.

Walter Energy Tax Matters. According to Walter Energy’s Form 10-Q (the “Walter Energy Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2015 (filed with the SEC on August 6, 2015), certain tax matters with respect to certain tax years prior to and including the year of our spin-off from Walter Energy remain unresolved, including certain tax matters relating to: (i) a “proof of claim” for a substantial amount of taxes, interest and penalties with respect to Walter Energy’s fiscal years ended August 31, 1983 through May 31, 1994, which was filed by the IRS in connection with Walter Energy’s bankruptcy filing on December 27, 1989 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division; (ii) an IRS audit of Walter Energy’s federal income tax returns for the years ended May 31, 2000 through December 31, 2008; and (iii) an IRS audit of Walter Energy’s federal income tax returns for the 2009 through 2013 tax years. It is unclear how these tax matters will be impacted, if at all, by Walter Energy’s recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Alabama, which is discussed below.

Walter Energy 2015 Bankruptcy Filing. On July 15, 2015, Walter Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama and, in connection therewith, filed a motion to assume a pre-petition restructuring support agreement between Walter Energy and certain holders of its funded indebtedness. Under this agreement, the parties thereto will pursue confirmation of a plan of reorganization (the “plan”) unless certain events occur, in which case Walter Energy will abandon the plan process and pursue a sale of its assets in accordance with Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. There is no indication in the plan of the amount of anticipated tax claims. According to the Walter Energy Form 10-Q, Walter Energy (i) intends to seek a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding federal tax issues including, to the extent possible, issues relating to the “proof of claim” described above, in connection with its recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Alabama and (ii) expects that any plan would provide mechanisms for the treatment of potential income tax liabilities.

The Company cannot predict whether or to what extent it may become liable for federal income taxes of the Walter Energy consolidated group, in part because it believes, based on publicly available information, that: (i) the amount of taxes owed by the Walter Energy consolidated group for the periods from 1983 through 2009 remains unresolved; (ii) in light of Walter Energy’s 2015 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, it is unclear (a) whether Walter Energy will be obligated or able to pay any or all of such amounts owed and (b) what portion of the IRS claims against the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years are attributable to tax, interest and/or penalties and what priority, if any, the IRS will receive in the Alabama bankruptcy proceedings with respect to its claims against Walter Energy; and (iii) it cannot predict whether, in the event Walter Energy does not discharge all tax obligations for the consolidated group, the IRS will seek to enforce tax claims against former members of the Walter Energy consolidated group. Further, because the Company cannot currently estimate its liability, if any, relating to the federal income tax liability of Walter Energy’s consolidated tax group during the tax years in which it was a part of such group, it cannot determine whether such liabilities, if any, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, liquidity and/or results of operations.

Tax Separation Agreement. In connection with our spin-off from Walter Energy, the Company and Walter Energy entered into a Tax Separation Agreement, dated April 17, 2009. Notwithstanding any several liability the Company may have under federal tax law described above, under the Tax Separation Agreement, Walter Energy agreed to retain full liability for all U.S. federal income or state combined income taxes of the Walter Energy consolidated group for 2009 and prior tax years (including any interest, additional taxes or penalties applicable thereto), subject to limited exceptions.

It is unclear, however, whether claims made by the Company under the Tax Separation Agreement would be enforceable against Walter Energy in connection with, or following the conclusion of, the various Walter Energy bankruptcy proceedings described above or if such claims would be rejected or disallowed under bankruptcy law, and whether Walter Energy will have the ability to satisfy in part or in full the amount of any claims made by the Company under the Tax Separation Agreement.

Furthermore, the Tax Separation Agreement provides that Walter Energy has, in its sole discretion, the exclusive right to represent the interests of the consolidated group in any audit, court proceeding or settlement of a claim with the IRS for the tax years in which certain of the Company’s former subsidiaries were a member of the Walter Energy consolidated group for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Moreover, the Tax Separation Agreement obligates the Company to take certain tax positions that are consistent with those taken historically by Walter Energy. In the event the Company does not take such positions, it could be liable to Walter Energy to the extent our failure to do so results in an increased tax liability or the reduction of any tax asset of Walter Energy. These arrangements may result in conflicts of interests between the Company and Walter Energy, particularly with regard to the Walter Energy bankruptcy proceedings described above.

Lastly, according to its public filings, Walter Energy’s 2009 tax year is currently under audit. Accordingly, if it is determined that certain distribution taxes and other amounts are owed related to the Company's spin-off from Walter Energy in 2009, the Company may be liable under the Tax Separation Agreement for all or a portion of such amounts.

The Company is unable to estimate reasonably possible losses for the matter described above.