COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Gabella Development Services Agreements Under terms of this agreement, Titan is entitled to a (i) pre-development services fees not to exceed $0.4 million, (ii) a development services fee equal to 3.0% of the total project cost (less an agreed-upon land basis of $3.0 million), and (iii) a post-development services fee of between 7% to 10% of the profit realized from the sale of the project. Alternatively, not earlier than 15 months following the achievement of 90% occupancy for the project, Titan may elect to cause us to buy out its interest in the project. If Titan makes such an election, the post-development services fee will be based on the fair market value of the project at the time of the election. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company recorded Titan’s post-development services fee $0.7 million in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as an increase in the asset basis with an offsetting increase to noncontrolling interests. The agreement is in effect until the fifth anniversary of the substantial completion of the project, as defined. If we elect not to proceed with phase 1, 2 or 3 of the project prior to our approval to proceed with development of each phase, the agreement is cancelable by us upon 30 days notice to Titan, subject to full payment of (i) the predevelopment services fee for each phase we elect not to develop, (ii) a $0.5 million breakage fee for each phase we elect not to develop, and (iii) any budgeted and approved costs incurred to date. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we paid Titan zero and $0.3 million, respectively, in development services fees due under these arrangements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we paid Titan $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively. Guarantor Recovery As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, we previously received judgments against certain guarantors in connection with their personal guarantees on certain legacy assets. Due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of these guarantors to pay the judgment amounts, we do not record recoveries for any amounts due under such judgments, except to the extent we have received assets without contingencies. In addition, these judgments may be subject to appeal. We recorded recovery income of $0.1 million and $0.2 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, for cash collected under certain settlements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we recorded total recovery income of $1,000 and $10.7 million, respectively, relating to cash and or other assets received in connection with such enforcement and collection efforts. We are continuing to investigate and evaluate the assets of various guarantors. However, the nature, amount and availability of such assets are not determinable as of September 30, 2016 and have not been recognized as recovery income in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Further recoveries under this and other enforcement and collection efforts will be recognized when realization of the recovery is deemed probable and when all contingencies relating to recovery have been resolved. Legal Matters We may be a party to litigation as the plaintiff or defendant in the ordinary course of business. While various asserted and unasserted claims may exist, resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. We establish reserves for legal claims when payments associated with the claims become probable and the payments can be reasonably estimated. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters, it is generally difficult to predict what the eventual outcome will be, and when the matter will be resolved. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be higher or lower than any amounts reserved for the claims. Partnership Claim In May 2015, Justin Ranch 123 LLLP (“Justin 123”), an Arizona limited liability limited partnership for which a wholly-owned subsidiary of IMH serves as general partner, sold certain real estate assets in an arms-length transaction approved by a court-appointed receiver. During the quarter ended March 31, 2016, a limited partner in Justin 123 filed a complaint in United States District Court for Arizona against the Company, certain of our subsidiaries, our CEO in his individual capacity and the court-appointed receiver, alleging that the defendants were in violation of their fiduciary duties to the limited partner. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to dismiss without prejudice all claims against the receiver and our CEO. The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of consequential damages and losses, and removal of the Company’s subsidiary as general partner. Management believes the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this claim. Intercreditor Agreement Claim The Company and certain of our subsidiaries are defendants in a case that is in the Arizona District Court. The case arose from claims by another creditor of the Justin 123 receivership discussed above, alleging breach of conduct and other related claims stemming from a Partial Settlement and Intercreditor Agreement entered into among the major creditors, including the claimant and certain of our subsidiaries. The suit seeks damages totaling $0.3 million, attorney fees, and punitive damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined; however, an accrual of $0.3 million is reflected in the financial statements. The Company believes that any liability it may ultimately incur would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or its results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Gabella Development Services Agreements

Under terms of this agreement, Titan is entitled to a (i) pre-development services fees not to exceed $0.4 million, (ii) a development services fee equal to 3.0% of the total project cost (less an agreed-upon land basis of $3.0 million), and (iii) a post-development services fee of between 7% to 10% of the profit realized from the sale of the project. Alternatively, not earlier than 15 months following the achievement of 90% occupancy for the project, Titan may elect to cause us to buy out its interest in the project. If Titan makes such an election, the post-development services fee will be based on the fair market value of the project at the time of the election. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company recorded Titan’s post-development services fee $0.7 million in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as an increase in the asset basis with an offsetting increase to noncontrolling interests. The agreement is in effect until the fifth anniversary of the substantial completion of the project, as defined. If we elect not to proceed with phase 1, 2 or 3 of the project prior to our approval to proceed with development of each phase, the agreement is cancelable by us upon 30 days notice to Titan, subject to full payment of (i) the predevelopment services fee for each phase we elect not to develop, (ii) a $0.5 million breakage fee for each phase we elect not to develop, and (iii) any budgeted and approved costs incurred to date. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we paid Titan zero and $0.3 million, respectively, in development services fees due under these arrangements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we paid Titan $0.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively.

Guarantor Recovery

As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, we previously received judgments against certain guarantors in connection with their personal guarantees on certain legacy assets. Due to the uncertainty regarding the ability of these guarantors to pay the judgment amounts, we do not record recoveries for any amounts due under such judgments, except to the extent we have received assets without contingencies. In addition, these judgments may be subject to appeal.

We recorded recovery income of $0.1 million and $0.2 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively, for cash collected under certain settlements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we recorded total recovery income of $1,000 and $10.7 million, respectively, relating to cash and or other assets received in connection with such enforcement and collection efforts.

We are continuing to investigate and evaluate the assets of various guarantors. However, the nature, amount and availability of such assets are not determinable as of September 30, 2016 and have not been recognized as recovery income in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Further recoveries under this and other enforcement and collection efforts will be recognized when realization of the recovery is deemed probable and when all contingencies relating to recovery have been resolved.

Legal Matters

We may be a party to litigation as the plaintiff or defendant in the ordinary course of business. While various asserted and unasserted claims may exist, resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty. We establish reserves for legal claims when payments associated with the claims become probable and the payments can be reasonably estimated. Given the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters, it is generally difficult to predict what the eventual outcome will be, and when the matter will be resolved. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be higher or lower than any amounts reserved for the claims.

Partnership Claim

In May 2015, Justin Ranch 123 LLLP (“Justin 123”), an Arizona limited liability limited partnership for which a wholly-owned subsidiary of IMH serves as general partner, sold certain real estate assets in an arms-length transaction approved by a court-appointed receiver. During the quarter ended March 31, 2016, a limited partner in Justin 123 filed a complaint in United States District Court for Arizona against the Company, certain of our subsidiaries, our CEO in his individual capacity and the court-appointed receiver, alleging that the defendants were in violation of their fiduciary duties to the limited partner. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to dismiss without prejudice all claims against the receiver and our CEO. The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of consequential damages and losses, and removal of the Company’s subsidiary as general partner. Management believes the plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this claim.

Intercreditor Agreement Claim

The Company and certain of our subsidiaries are defendants in a case that is in the Arizona District Court. The case arose from claims by another creditor of the Justin 123 receivership discussed above, alleging breach of conduct and other related claims stemming from a Partial Settlement and Intercreditor Agreement entered into among the major creditors, including the claimant and certain of our subsidiaries. The suit seeks damages totaling $0.3 million, attorney fees, and punitive damages. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined; however, an accrual of $0.3 million is reflected in the financial statements. The Company believes that any liability it may ultimately incur would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or its results of operations.