COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY	NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY Liquidity. Management believes that ARL will generate excess cash flow from property operations in 2017, such excess however, will not be sufficient to discharge all of ARL’s obligations as they became due. Management intends to sell land and income-incomeproducing real estate, refinance real estate and obtain additional borrowings primarily secured by real estate to meet its liquidity requirements. Guarantees. TCI is a primary guarantor, on a $60.4 million mezzanine loan between UHF and a lender. In addition, ARL, and an officer of the Company are limited recourse guarantors of the loan. As of December 31, 2016 UHF was in compliance with the covenants to the loan agreement. LK-Four Hickory, LLC owns a commercial office building in Dallas, Texas. On January 17, 2012, TCI sold its investment in LK-Four Hickory, LLC, however ARL continues to be a guarantor on the bank debt which had an outstanding balance of $20.9 million at December 31, 2016. Partnership Buyouts. ARL is the limited partner in various partnerships related to the construction of residential properties. As permitted in the respective partnership agreements, ARL intends to purchase the interests of the general and any other limited partners in these partnerships subsequent to the completion of these projects. The amounts paid to buyout the nonaffiliated partners are limited to development fees earned by the nonaffiliated partners, and are set forth in the respective partnership agreements. ART and ART Midwest, Inc. While the Company and all entities in which the Company has a direct or indirect equity interest are not parties to or obligated in any way for the outcome, a formerly owned entity (American Realty Trust, Inc.) and its former subsidiary (ART Midwest, Inc.) have been engaged since 1999 in litigation with Mr. David Clapper and entities related to Mr. Clapper (collectively, the “Clapper Parties”). The matter originally involved a transaction in 1998 in which ART Midwest, Inc. was to acquire eight residential apartment complexes from the Clapper Parties. Through the years, a number of rulings, both for and against American Realty Trust, Inc. (“ART”) and ART Midwest, Inc., were issued. In October 2011, a ruling was issued under which the Clapper Parties received a judgment for approximately $74 million, including $26 million in actual damages and $48 million interest. The ruling was against ART and ART Midwest, Inc., but no other entity. During February 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the judgment in favor of the Clapper Parties, but also ruled that a double counting of a significant portion of the damages had occurred and remanded the case back to the trial court to recalculate the damage award, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest thereon. Subsequently, the trial court recalculated the damage award, reducing it to approximately $59 million, inclusive of actual damages and then current interest. ART was also a significant owner of a partnership interest in the partnership that was awarded the initial damages in this matter. The Clapper Parties subsequently filed a new lawsuit against ARI, its subsidiary EQK Holdings, Inc. (“EQK”), and ART. The Clapper Parties seek damages from ARL for payment by ART to ARL of ART’s stock in EQK in exchange for a release of the Antecedent Debt owed by ART to ARI. Management is vigorously defending this Litigation. In 2005, ART filed suit against a major national law firm over the initial transaction. That action was initially abated while the principal case with the Clapper Parties was pending, but the abatement was recently lifted. The trial court subsequently dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but ART has filed a notice of appeal. In January 2012, the Company sold all of the issued and outstanding stock of ART to an unrelated party for a promissory note in the amount of $10 million. At December 31, 2012, the Company fully reserved and valued such note at zero. Port Olpenitz ARL, through a foreign subsidiary, was involved in developing a maritime harbor town on the 420 acre site of the former naval base of Olpenitz in Kappeln, Germany. Disputes with the local partner related to his mismanagement of the project resulted in his being replaced as the managing partner which was followed by a filing for bankruptcy protection in Germany to completely remove him from the project. An insolvency manager was placed in control of the project in order to protect the creditors and as of December 31, 2013, had sold the vast majority of assets (almost all land) of the project. The Company no longer has any financial responsibility for the obligations of the creditors related to the project and has claims filed for loans relating to our investment in the project. Due to the questionable collectability of these loans from the proceeds of the project, the Company has written off the unreserved balance of $5.3 million in the project. As of December 13, 2013, ARL had filed two lawsuits in Germany to recover funds invested in the project. The lawsuits are against: 1) the former German partner and his company, and 2) against the law firm in Hamburg originally hired to protect ARL’s investment in the project. At this time it is unknown how much can be recovered or how successful the litigation will be. Dynex Capital, Inc. On July 20, 2015, the 68^th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas issued its Final Judgment in Cause No. DC-03-00675, styled Basic Capital Management, Inc., American Realty Trust, Inc., Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc. The case, which was litigated for more than a decade, had its origin with Dynex Commercial making loans to Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. (subsidiaries of Continental Mortgage & Equity Trust (“CMET”), an entity which merged into TCI in 1999 after the original suit was filed). Under the original loan commitment, $160 million in loans were to be made to the entities. The loans were conditioned on the execution of a commitment between Dynex Commercial and Basic Capital Management, Inc. (“Basic”). An original trial in 2004, which also included Dynex Capital, Inc. as a defendant, resulted in a jury awarding damages in favor of Basic for “lost opportunity,” as well as damages in favor of ART and in favor of TCI and its subsidiaries for “increased costs” and “lost opportunity.” The original Trial Court judge ignored the jury’s findings, however, and entered a “Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” (“JNOV”) in favor of the Dynex entities (the judge held the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages from the Dynex entities). After numerous appeals by all parties, Dynex Capital, Inc. was ultimately dismissed from the case and the remaining claims against Dynex Commercial were remanded to the Trial Court for a new judgment consistent with the jury’s findings. The Court entered the new Final Judgment against Dynex Commercial, Inc. on July 20, 2015. The Final Judgment entered against Dynex Commercial, Inc. on July 20, 2015 awarded Basic $0.256 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest of $0.192 million for a total amount of $0.448 million. The Judgment awarded ART $14.2 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest of $10.6 million for a total amount of $24.8 million. The Judgment awarded TCI $11.1 million, plus pre-judgment interest of $8.4 million for a total amount of $19.5 million. The Judgment also awarded Basic, ART, and TCI post-judgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum from April 25, 2014 until the date their respective damages are paid. Lastly, the Judgement awarded Basic, ART, and TCI $1.6 million collectively in attorneys’ fees from Dynex Commercial, Inc. The Company is working with counsel to identify assets and collect on the Final Judgment against Dynex Commercial, Inc., as well as explore possible additional claims, if any, against Dynex Capital, Inc.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY

NOTE 16. COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES, AND LIQUIDITY

Liquidity. Management believes that ARL will generate excess cash flow from property operations in 2017, such excess however, will not be sufficient to discharge all of ARL’s obligations as they became due. Management intends to sell land and income-incomeproducing real estate, refinance real estate and obtain additional borrowings primarily secured by real estate to meet its liquidity requirements.

Guarantees. TCI is a primary guarantor, on a $60.4 million mezzanine loan between UHF and a lender. In addition, ARL, and an officer of the Company are limited recourse guarantors of the loan. As of December 31, 2016 UHF was in compliance with the covenants to the loan agreement.

LK-Four Hickory, LLC owns a commercial office building in Dallas, Texas. On January 17, 2012, TCI sold its investment in LK-Four Hickory, LLC, however ARL continues to be a guarantor on the bank debt which had an outstanding balance of $20.9 million at December 31, 2016.

Partnership Buyouts. ARL is the limited partner in various partnerships related to the construction of residential properties. As permitted in the respective partnership agreements, ARL intends to purchase the interests of the general and any other limited partners in these partnerships subsequent to the completion of these projects. The amounts paid to buyout the nonaffiliated partners are limited to development fees earned by the nonaffiliated partners, and are set forth in the respective partnership agreements.

ART and ART Midwest, Inc.

While the Company and all entities in which the Company has a direct or indirect equity interest are not parties to or obligated in any way for the outcome, a formerly owned entity (American Realty Trust, Inc.) and its former subsidiary (ART Midwest, Inc.) have been engaged since 1999 in litigation with Mr. David Clapper and entities related to Mr. Clapper (collectively, the “Clapper Parties”). The matter originally involved a transaction in 1998 in which ART Midwest, Inc. was to acquire eight residential apartment complexes from the Clapper Parties. Through the years, a number of rulings, both for and against American Realty Trust, Inc. (“ART”) and ART Midwest, Inc., were issued. In October 2011, a ruling was issued under which the Clapper Parties received a judgment for approximately $74 million, including $26 million in actual damages and $48 million interest. The ruling was against ART and ART Midwest, Inc., but no other entity. During February 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the judgment in favor of the Clapper Parties, but also ruled that a double counting of a significant portion of the damages had occurred and remanded the case back to the trial court to recalculate the damage award, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest thereon. Subsequently, the trial court recalculated the damage award, reducing it to approximately $59 million, inclusive of actual damages and then current interest. ART was also a significant owner of a partnership interest in the partnership that was awarded the initial damages in this matter.

The Clapper Parties subsequently filed a new lawsuit against ARI, its subsidiary EQK Holdings, Inc. (“EQK”), and ART. The Clapper Parties seek damages from ARL for payment by ART to ARL of ART’s stock in EQK in exchange for a release of the Antecedent Debt owed by ART to ARI. Management is vigorously defending this Litigation.

In 2005, ART filed suit against a major national law firm over the initial transaction. That action was initially abated while the principal case with the Clapper Parties was pending, but the abatement was recently lifted. The trial court subsequently dismissed the case on procedural grounds, but ART has filed a notice of appeal. In January 2012, the Company sold all of the issued and outstanding stock of ART to an unrelated party for a promissory note in the amount of $10 million. At December 31, 2012, the Company fully reserved and valued such note at zero.

Port Olpenitz

ARL, through a foreign subsidiary, was involved in developing a maritime harbor town on the 420 acre site of the former naval base of Olpenitz in Kappeln, Germany. Disputes with the local partner related to his mismanagement of the project resulted in his being replaced as the managing partner which was followed by a filing for bankruptcy protection in Germany to completely remove him from the project. An insolvency manager was placed in control of the project in order to protect the creditors and as of December 31, 2013, had sold the vast majority of assets (almost all land) of the project. The Company no longer has any financial responsibility for the obligations of the creditors related to the project and has claims filed for loans relating to our investment in the project. Due to the questionable collectability of these loans from the proceeds of the project, the Company has written off the unreserved balance of $5.3 million in the project. As of December 13, 2013, ARL had filed two lawsuits in Germany to recover funds invested in the project. The lawsuits are against: 1) the former German partner and his company, and 2) against the law firm in Hamburg originally hired to protect ARL’s investment in the project. At this time it is unknown how much can be recovered or how successful the litigation will be.

Dynex Capital, Inc.

On July 20, 2015, the 68^th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas issued its Final Judgment in Cause No. DC-03-00675, styled Basic Capital Management, Inc., American Realty Trust, Inc., Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc. The case, which was litigated for more than a decade, had its origin with Dynex Commercial making loans to Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. (subsidiaries of Continental Mortgage & Equity Trust (“CMET”), an entity which merged into TCI in 1999 after the original suit was filed). Under the original loan commitment, $160 million in loans were to be made to the entities. The loans were conditioned on the execution of a commitment between Dynex Commercial and Basic Capital Management, Inc. (“Basic”).

An original trial in 2004, which also included Dynex Capital, Inc. as a defendant, resulted in a jury awarding damages in favor of Basic for “lost opportunity,” as well as damages in favor of ART and in favor of TCI and its subsidiaries for “increased costs” and “lost opportunity.” The original Trial Court judge ignored the jury’s findings, however, and entered a “Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” (“JNOV”) in favor of the Dynex entities (the judge held the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages from the Dynex entities). After numerous appeals by all parties, Dynex Capital, Inc. was ultimately dismissed from the case and the remaining claims against Dynex Commercial were remanded to the Trial Court for a new judgment consistent with the jury’s findings. The Court entered the new Final Judgment against Dynex Commercial, Inc. on July 20, 2015.

The Final Judgment entered against Dynex Commercial, Inc. on July 20, 2015 awarded Basic $0.256 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest of $0.192 million for a total amount of $0.448 million. The Judgment awarded ART $14.2 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest of $10.6 million for a total amount of $24.8 million. The Judgment awarded TCI $11.1 million, plus pre-judgment interest of $8.4 million for a total amount of $19.5 million. The Judgment also awarded Basic, ART, and TCI post-judgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum from April 25, 2014 until the date their respective damages are paid. Lastly, the Judgement awarded Basic, ART, and TCI $1.6 million collectively in attorneys’ fees from Dynex Commercial, Inc.

The Company is working with counsel to identify assets and collect on the Final Judgment against Dynex Commercial, Inc., as well as explore possible additional claims, if any, against Dynex Capital, Inc.