Note N - Legal Matters Involving The Company	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	NOTE N — LEGAL MATTERS INVOLVING THE COMPANY In April 2006, the lenders of the loans made to RightStar, Inc. (“RightStar”) filed suit against the State of Hawaii listing 26 causes of action, including allegations that the State of Hawaii illegally blocked the lender’s right to foreclose and take title to its collateral by inappropriately attaching conditions to the granting of licenses needed to operate the business, the pre-need trust funds and the perpetual care trust funds and that the State of Hawaii attempted to force the lenders to accept liability for any statutory trust fund deficits while no such lender liability exists under the laws of the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii responded by filing allegations against Vestin Mortgage and VRM II alleging that these Vestin entities improperly influenced the former RightStar trustees to transfer trust funds to VRM II. On May 9, 2007, we, VRM II, Vestin Mortgage, the State of Hawaii and Comerica Incorporated (“Comerica”) announced that an arrangement had been reached to auction the RightStar assets. The auction was not successful. On June 12, 2007, the court approved the resolution agreement, which provides that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale would be allocated in part to VRM II, Vestin Mortgage and us and in part to fund the trust’s statutory minimum balances. We, VRM II, Vestin Mortgage, the State of Hawaii and Comerica have pledged to cooperate to recover additional amounts owed to the trusts and the creditors from others. Should the recovery meet or exceed $9 million, all parties have agreed that no further litigation between the state of Hawaii and Vestin will be reinstituted related to the trusts’ statutory minimum balances. The Vestin entities and the State of Hawaii signed a new agreement that would permit the foreclosure to proceed. On January 25, 2010, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii confirmed the right of VRM I and its affiliates VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, to acquire through foreclosure the RightStar assets. On June 29, 2010 the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii issued its final order allowing the foreclosure. On July 13, 2010 we and VRM II completed our foreclosure of these properties and we classified them as Investment in Equity Method Investee Held for Sale. We, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage (“Defendants”) were defendants in a breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the merger of Fund I into VRM I and Fund II into VRM II. The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and Fund II unit holders who voted against the mergers of Fund I into VRM I and Fund II into VRM II. The trial began in December 2009 and concluded in January 2010. On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court for the State of California in San Diego following a trial. In the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-up and therefore no breach of contract. The Court entered final judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010. Defendants and Plaintiffs agreed to a post-judgment settlement by which Plaintiffs agreed not to appeal the judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any claim to recover actual court costs from the Plaintiffs. The Court granted final approval of this settlement of post-judgment rights on July 9, 2010. We, Vestin Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek (“Defendants”) were defendants in a civil action filed by approximately 25 separate plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) in District Court for Clark County, Nevada. The Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Defendants: breached certain alleged contractual obligations owed to Plaintiffs; breached fiduciary duties supposedly owed to Plaintiffs; and misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the conversion of Fund I into VRM I. The action sought monetary and punitive damages. On September 8, 2010, the parties agreed to settle the case. The Settlement Agreement provides for the settlement and complete release of all claims against the Defendants. The settlement was made without admission of liability by the Defendants. In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in a number of other legal proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of our business activities. We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of these actions and intend to defend them vigorously. Other than the matters described above, we believe that we are not a party to any pending legal or arbitration proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations or cash flows, although it is possible that the outcome of any such proceedings could have a material impact on our operations in any particular period. In July, 2012, we along with our Manager, VRMI, Vestin Group, Vestin Originations and Michael Shustek entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with the State of Hawaii and The Huntington National Bank as successor trustee to the Rightstar Trusts. Under the ARRA, Vestin was entitled to receive a portion of certain net proceeds from certain claims from third parties through litigation, settlement or otherwise. The parties agreed that to mutually release each other from any claims and in lieu of such amounts due under the ARRA, within ten (10) business days after the later of (a) the Successor Trustee Huntington's receipt of the First Tranche of certain trust recovery proceeds or (b) entry of a final and non-appealable decision or order approving settlement with each of certain other persons, the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($145,000.00) shall be disbursed from the First Tranche of TRM Proceeds to Vestin. All other amounts payable under the ARRA were assigned to the Rightstar Trusts and the Successor Trustee Huntington all rights, obligations and claims Vestin has or ever can, shall or may have or claim to have arising out of or related to the Rightstar Trusts, or which were asserted or which could have been asserted in such cases. Vestin also released any and all interest in the amounts set aside from the sale of the property at 485 Waiale Street, Wailuku, Hawai'i (the "Maui Property Proceeds"). Finally Vestin agreed to purchase all 447,226 shares in Vestin Fund II, LLC currently owned by the Rightstar trusts for $1.40 per share, which purchase is to be consummated within seven (7) days following Court approval of the settlement. The settlement was approved by the Court on August 3, 2012. On February 7, 2012, we, VRM II and Fund III entered into a Deed in Lieu Agreement with a borrower resolving the foreclosure of our secured loan which had matured on December 31, 2011, with a balance of approximately $11.8 million, of which our portion was approximately $0.9 million. Our subsidiary 1701 Commerce, LLC, pursuant to the Deed in Lieu Agreement received a deed to the property which had secured the loan. The property, which is being operated as the Sheraton – Forth Worth, Texas, is the subject of litigation relating to the validity, priority, nature, and extent of liens claimed by other parties that may secure claims ranging from approximately $39 million to $43 million. We dispute both the validity of the claimed liens and the amount of the claimed secured debt in whole or in part and as of this time intend to pursue our objections and disputes as to such matters. On March 26, 2012, 1701 Commerce filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ft. Worth Division, to reorganize its financial affairs and to avoid a potential foreclosure of the property that had been scheduled by the lien claimants and to preserve and protect 1701 Commerce’s equity in the and the interests of the other creditors of the property. Due to the uncertainty and dispute involving this property, we have recorded this investment as Other Real Estate Owned on the balance sheet. We will continue to pursue and protect our equity in this property and have formulated and proposed a plan of reorganization for the Debtor and the property. Such plan has not been confirmed or approved by the Bankruptcy Court as of this time and we anticipate that revisions to the plan will be required to confirm the plan. If the Bankruptcy Court confirms a plan of reorganization in which our equity in the Debtor is preserved or retained, we expect to include the operations through consolidation into our financial statements from that date. If we are not able to confirm such a plan or if the Bankruptcy Court confirms a reorganization plan that does not retain or preserve 100% of the loan, we will determine the appropriate accounting treatment as of the date of such event, if any. We hold an interest of approximately 8%, VRM II holds an interest of approximately 90% and Fund III holds an interest of approximately 2% in 1701 Commerce.

Note N - Legal Matters Involving The Company

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

NOTE N — LEGAL MATTERS INVOLVING THE COMPANY

In April 2006, the lenders of the loans made to RightStar, Inc. (“RightStar”) filed suit against the State of Hawaii listing 26 causes of action, including allegations that the State of Hawaii illegally blocked the lender’s right to foreclose and take title to its collateral by inappropriately attaching conditions to the granting of licenses needed to operate the business, the pre-need trust funds and the perpetual care trust funds and that the State of Hawaii attempted to force the lenders to accept liability for any statutory trust fund deficits while no such lender liability exists under the laws of the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii responded by filing allegations against Vestin Mortgage and VRM II alleging that these Vestin entities improperly influenced the former RightStar trustees to transfer trust funds to VRM II.

On May 9, 2007, we, VRM II, Vestin Mortgage, the State of Hawaii and Comerica Incorporated (“Comerica”) announced that an arrangement had been reached to auction the RightStar assets. The auction was not successful. On June 12, 2007, the court approved the resolution agreement, which provides that the proceeds of the foreclosure sale would be allocated in part to VRM II, Vestin Mortgage and us and in part to fund the trust’s statutory minimum balances. We, VRM II, Vestin Mortgage, the State of Hawaii and Comerica have pledged to cooperate to recover additional amounts owed to the trusts and the creditors from others. Should the recovery meet or exceed $9 million, all parties have agreed that no further litigation between the state of Hawaii and Vestin will be reinstituted related to the trusts’ statutory minimum balances. The Vestin entities and the State of Hawaii signed a new agreement that would permit the foreclosure to proceed. On January 25, 2010, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii confirmed the right of VRM I and its affiliates VRM II and Vestin Mortgage, to acquire through foreclosure the RightStar assets. On June 29, 2010 the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii issued its final order allowing the foreclosure. On July 13, 2010 we and VRM II completed our foreclosure of these properties and we classified them as Investment in Equity Method Investee Held for Sale.

We, VRM II and Vestin Mortgage (“Defendants”) were defendants in a breach of contract class action filed in San Diego Superior Court by certain plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, that they were wrongfully denied roll-up rights in connection with the merger of Fund I into VRM I and Fund II into VRM II. The court certified a class of all former Fund I unit holders and Fund II unit holders who voted against the mergers of Fund I into VRM I and Fund II into VRM II. The trial began in December 2009 and concluded in January 2010. On February 11, 2010, the Defendants were notified of a Tentative Statement of Decision, in their favor issued by the Superior Court for the State of California in San Diego following a trial. In the Tentative Statement, the Court found that there was no roll-up and therefore no breach of contract. The Court entered final judgment for the Defendants on March 18, 2010. Defendants and Plaintiffs agreed to a post-judgment settlement by which Plaintiffs agreed not to appeal the judgment in consideration of a waiver by the Defendants of any claim to recover actual court costs from the Plaintiffs. The Court granted final approval of this settlement of post-judgment rights on July 9, 2010.

We, Vestin Mortgage and Michael V. Shustek (“Defendants”) were defendants in a civil action filed by approximately 25 separate plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) in District Court for Clark County, Nevada. The Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Defendants: breached certain alleged contractual obligations owed to Plaintiffs; breached fiduciary duties supposedly owed to Plaintiffs; and misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the conversion of Fund I into VRM I. The action sought monetary and punitive damages. On September 8, 2010, the parties agreed to settle the case. The Settlement Agreement provides for the settlement and complete release of all claims against the Defendants. The settlement was made without admission of liability by the Defendants.

In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in a number of other legal proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of our business activities. We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of these actions and intend to defend them vigorously. Other than the matters described above, we believe that we are not a party to any pending legal or arbitration proceedings that would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations or cash flows, although it is possible that the outcome of any such proceedings could have a material impact on our operations in any particular period.

In July, 2012, we along with our Manager, VRMI, Vestin Group, Vestin Originations and Michael Shustek entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with the State of Hawaii and The Huntington National Bank as successor trustee to the Rightstar Trusts. Under the ARRA, Vestin was entitled to receive a portion of certain net proceeds from certain claims from third parties through litigation, settlement or otherwise. The parties agreed that to mutually release each other from any claims and in lieu of such amounts due under the ARRA, within ten (10) business days after the later of (a) the Successor Trustee Huntington's receipt of the First Tranche of certain trust recovery proceeds or (b) entry of a final and non-appealable decision or order approving settlement with each of certain other persons, the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($145,000.00) shall be disbursed from the First Tranche of TRM Proceeds to Vestin. All other amounts payable under the ARRA were assigned to the Rightstar Trusts and the Successor Trustee Huntington all rights, obligations and claims Vestin has or ever can, shall or may have or claim to have arising out of or related to the Rightstar Trusts, or which were asserted or which could have been asserted in such cases. Vestin also released any and all interest in the amounts set aside from the sale of the property at 485 Waiale Street, Wailuku, Hawai'i (the "Maui Property Proceeds"). Finally Vestin agreed to purchase all 447,226 shares in Vestin Fund II, LLC currently owned by the Rightstar trusts for $1.40 per share, which purchase is to be consummated within seven (7) days following Court approval of the settlement. The settlement was approved by the Court on August 3, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, we, VRM II and Fund III entered into a Deed in Lieu Agreement with a borrower resolving the foreclosure of our secured loan which had matured on December 31, 2011, with a balance of approximately $11.8 million, of which our portion was approximately $0.9 million. Our subsidiary 1701 Commerce, LLC, pursuant to the Deed in Lieu Agreement received a deed to the property which had secured the loan. The property, which is being operated as the Sheraton – Forth Worth, Texas, is the subject of litigation relating to the validity, priority, nature, and extent of liens claimed by other parties that may secure claims ranging from approximately $39 million to $43 million. We dispute both the validity of the claimed liens and the amount of the claimed secured debt in whole or in part and as of this time intend to pursue our objections and disputes as to such matters. On March 26, 2012, 1701 Commerce filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ft. Worth Division, to reorganize its financial affairs and to avoid a potential foreclosure of the property that had been scheduled by the lien claimants and to preserve and protect 1701 Commerce’s equity in the and the interests of the other creditors of the property. Due to the uncertainty and dispute involving this property, we have recorded this investment as Other Real Estate Owned on the balance sheet. We will continue to pursue and protect our equity in this property and have formulated and proposed a plan of reorganization for the Debtor and the property. Such plan has not been confirmed or approved by the Bankruptcy Court as of this time and we anticipate that revisions to the plan will be required to confirm the plan. If the Bankruptcy Court confirms a plan of reorganization in which our equity in the Debtor is preserved or retained, we expect to include the operations through consolidation into our financial statements from that date. If we are not able to confirm such a plan or if the Bankruptcy Court confirms a reorganization plan that does not retain or preserve 100% of the loan, we will determine the appropriate accounting treatment as of the date of such event, if any. We hold an interest of approximately 8%, VRM II holds an interest of approximately 90% and Fund III holds an interest of approximately 2% in 1701 Commerce.