COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Construction and Related Guarantees As described in Note 9, the Company agreed to provide MidFirst Bank with a loan repayment guaranty equal to 50% of the principal amount of the MacArthur Loan and a construction completion guaranty with respect to the planned renovations of MacArthur Place. The construction completion guaranty will be released upon payment of all project costs and receipt of a certificate of occupancy. The MidFirst Bank loan documents also require that the loan remain “in balance” throughout its term such that the sum of all remaining undisbursed loan funds and the amounts expended by the borrower will be sufficient to complete the approved construction budget and loan interest. If the loan becomes out of balance, the Company must fund the difference from its own equity. Well Repair Commitment Certain of the New Mexico Partnerships hold ownership of rights to develop water on various parcels in Sandoval County, New Mexico. In order to preserve those rights, the related partnerships have agreed with the relevant New Mexico governmental authorities to undertake a remediation plan to replace the infrastructure of two existing deep well groundwater wells on one of the parcels as a more permanent solution. Under the terms of certain secured promissory notes with the related entities, the Company agreed to fund the infrastructure development costs under certain secured note agreements. The balance of remaining well repair work was completed during the third quarter of 2018. Related costs totaled approximately $2.8 million of which $2.1 million was incurred during the nine months ended September 30, 2018. Loan Origination During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Company originated a construction loan for up to $13.1 million, bearing interest at 8.5% plus one month LIBOR with an initial maturity date of July 18, 2020. Funding of the loan has not commenced as of September 30, 2018 and will not commence until the borrower meets its equity requirement in the project of $9.7 million, which is expected to be met in the fourth quarter of 2018. Guarantor Recovery As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, we have pursued and periodically receive favorable judgments against guarantors in connection with their personal guarantees of certain legacy loans on which we previously foreclosed. Similarly, we have filed claims against certain insurance providers or other parties for reimbursement of amounts due under such policies. Due to the uncertainty of the nature and extent of the available assets of these guarantors to pay the judgment amounts or amounts collectible under insurance claims, we do not record recoveries for any amounts due under such judgments or claims, except to the extent we have received assets without contingencies. Nevertheless, these matters may be subject to appeal. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, we recorded cash, receivables and/or other asset recoveries of $0 and $0.2 million from guarantor settlements, insurance recoveries and other settlements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 we recorded cash, receivables and/or other asset recoveries of $6.1 million and $6.4 million, respectively from guarantor settlement, insurance recoveries and other settlements. We continue to pursue, investigate and evaluate the assets available of guarantors to collect all amounts due under judgments received in our favor. However, to the extent that such amounts are not determinable, they have not been recognized as recovery income in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Further recoveries under this and other judgments received in our favor 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 uncertainty 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 Claims In August 2016, a limited liability company member of Carinos Properties, LLC and Unit 6 Partners, LLC, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging the Company breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiff under ERISA with respect to certain property we own in New Mexico. Damages were not specified. In April 2018, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment in the case, but stayed any further action in the case pending the results of related litigation before the state trial court (“State Court”) described below. Management believes plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this claim. On April 20, 2017, a subsidiary of the Company filed an action against a limited partner in Recorp-New Mexico Limited Partnership LLC (“RNMA I”) with the United States District Court, District of Arizona (“USDC”) seeking declaratory relief that the partner’s limited partnership interest in RNMA I has been properly conveyed to the IMH subsidiary. The USDC dismissed the action and the Company subsidiary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”). The limited partner had disputed the effectiveness of the transfer of his limited partnership interest and the similar transfer of other limited partnership interests in RNMA I to the Company. This limited partner has initiated litigation in the State Court seeking to resolve this dispute in another forum. This matter has been stayed at the Ninth Circuit level pending the litigation described below. Based on the advice of counsel, management believes the transfer of the limited partnership interests by the then-acting general partner was done in accordance with the rights granted to the general partner under the relevant organizational documents, and we believe that it is more likely than not that the court in the above referenced matter will agree with that conclusion. However, if the State Court were to rule that the limited partner interest transfers were ineffective, this could result in the recording of noncontrolling interests in that partnership of approximately $3.1 million as of September 30, 2018. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined with certainty and no amounts have been accrued for this matter in the consolidated financial statements. In September 2017, the State Court ordered the termination of the receivership over Stockholder, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Stockholder”). Stockholder is the owner of all of the shares of stock in certain corporations that act as the general partner / limited liability company manager of several entities that own land and/or certain water interests in New Mexico. In December 2017, the State Court entered an interim “stay” order in the Company’s case against judgment debtor David P. Maniatis and his affiliates (“Maniatis”) enjoining the Company from taking any further collection action against Maniatis, pending an accounting of all previous debt collection activities and a trial on certain limited issues involving the calculation of interest and penalties on the original defaulted debt guaranteed by Maniatis. The stay order also temporarily inhibits the Company from effecting the sale or transfer of all or any part of the property previously acquired by the Company through litigation involving Maniatis, including approximately 7,000 acres of land and related water interests in New Mexico, and 111 acres of land in Texas. The potential range of loss in this matter, if any, is indeterminable. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined and no amounts have been accrued for in these consolidated financial statements. 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 receivership over Justin Ranch 123, LLP, alleging breach of contract 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, plus attorney fees and punitive damages. The suit has been stayed pending the outcome of other litigation. 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. The Company believes that any liability it may ultimately incur would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or its result of operations. 11333, Inc. Claim In 2008, a subsidiary of the Company suffered a loss due to hurricane damage sustained to a property it owned in Galveston, Texas. This property did not have insurance coverage at the time of loss. In March of 2011, the subsidiary filed a claim under an errors and omissions policy with its insurer, Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”), for failure to maintain adequate insurance on the property. The claim which was denied by Lloyd’s and the Company filed a lawsuit with respect to this policy in the United States District Court of Arizona (the “Court”) against Lloyd’s and the Company’s insurance broker, HUB International Insurance Co. (“HUB”). On April 5, 2017, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which the Company has appealed. Lloyd’s and HUB also filed motions seeking reimbursement of attorney fees in the amount of up to $1.2 million and the Company has filed opposing motions. During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Court entered judgments against its subsidiary awarding Lloyd’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1.2 million and awarding HUB attorney’s fees in the amount of $0.1 million. IMH has filed an amended notice of appeal to include the Court’s rulings on the attorney’s fee awards. Its subsidiary does not have the ability to satisfy these judgments. HUB settled its judgments for attorney’s fees and costs in exchange for a dismissal of 11333, Inc.’s appeal against HUB, which has now been finalized, which results in no payment by 11333, Inc.. Similarly, 11333, Inc. has also made an offer to settle its appeal against Lloyd’s in exchange for a release as to its judgment for attorney’s fees and costs, with 11333, Inc. paying no amounts, which Lloyd’s has tentatively accepted pending review of certain 11333, Inc. financial documentation. IMH is awaiting a response from Lloyd’s. IMH’s appellate brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal was due November 15, 2018, but the parties agreed to an extension of time to finalize the settlement. Based upon the advice of its counsel in this matter, management believes that IMH will not be required to satisfy these judgments on behalf of its subsidiary and as such considers it is more likely than not that the Company will not suffer a loss on this matter. Accordingly, no adjustment relating to this claim has been recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Hotel Fund Obligations As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, if the Hotel Fund has insufficient operating cash flow to pay the Preferred Distribution in a given month, the Company has agreed to provide the funds necessary to pay the Preferred Distribution for such month. Such payments are treated as an additional capital contribution and the Company’s capital account will be increased by such amount. Moreover, we, as the sponsor, have agreed to fund, in the form of common capital contributions, up to 6.0% of gross proceeds as selling commissions and up to 1.0% of gross proceeds as nonaccountable expense reimbursements to broker-dealers based on the capital raised by them for the Hotel Fund. These portions of our common equity in the Hotel Fund are subordinate to the distribution of capital to Preferred Investors in the event of a capital transaction. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Company contributed $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively and paid commissions of less than $0.1 million under these provisions for each respective period. The ultimate timing and amount of such required shortfall funding is indeterminable and could be material to the Company’s operations and liquidity. Property Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Receivable In connection with the sale of certain of our real estate assets in September 2018, the Company negotiated with the buyer that the Company will retain a 50% interest, if any, in the proceeds generated from a long-term TIF development subsidy provided by the sponsoring governmental agency. The TIF was approved by resolution of the applicable governmental agency in August 2018, subject to the finalization of a certain land contribution by one of the unrelated developers in the overall development project, which had not been completed as of September 30, 2018. The Company did not record the effects of this TIF receivable in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Other We are subject to oversight by various state and federal regulatory authorities, including, but not limited to, the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions (Banking), and the SEC. Our income tax returns have not been examined by taxing authorities and all statutorily open years remain subject to examination.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Construction and Related Guarantees

As described in Note 9, the Company agreed to provide MidFirst Bank with a loan repayment guaranty equal to 50% of the principal amount of the MacArthur Loan and a construction completion guaranty with respect to the planned renovations of MacArthur Place. The construction completion guaranty will be released upon payment of all project costs and receipt of a certificate of occupancy. The MidFirst Bank loan documents also require that the loan remain “in balance” throughout its term such that the sum of all remaining undisbursed loan funds and the amounts expended by the borrower will be sufficient to complete the approved construction budget and loan interest. If the loan becomes out of balance, the Company must fund the difference from its own equity.

Well Repair Commitment

Certain of the New Mexico Partnerships hold ownership of rights to develop water on various parcels in Sandoval County, New Mexico. In order to preserve those rights, the related partnerships have agreed with the relevant New Mexico governmental authorities to undertake a remediation plan to replace the infrastructure of two existing deep well groundwater wells on one of the parcels as a more permanent solution. Under the terms of certain secured promissory notes with the related entities, the Company agreed to fund the infrastructure development costs under certain secured note agreements. The balance of remaining well repair work was completed during the third quarter of 2018. Related costs totaled approximately $2.8 million of which $2.1 million was incurred during the nine months ended September 30, 2018.

Loan Origination

During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Company originated a construction loan for up to $13.1 million, bearing interest at 8.5% plus one month LIBOR with an initial maturity date of July 18, 2020. Funding of the loan has not commenced as of September 30, 2018 and will not commence until the borrower meets its equity requirement in the project of $9.7 million, which is expected to be met in the fourth quarter of 2018.

Guarantor Recovery

As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, we have pursued and periodically receive favorable judgments against guarantors in connection with their personal guarantees of certain legacy loans on which we previously foreclosed. Similarly, we have filed claims against certain insurance providers or other parties for reimbursement of amounts due under such policies. Due to the uncertainty of the nature and extent of the available assets of these guarantors to pay the judgment amounts or amounts collectible under insurance claims, we do not record recoveries for any amounts due under such judgments or claims, except to the extent we have received assets without contingencies. Nevertheless, these matters may be subject to appeal.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, we recorded cash, receivables and/or other asset recoveries of $0 and $0.2 million from guarantor settlements, insurance recoveries and other settlements. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017 we recorded cash, receivables and/or other asset recoveries of $6.1 million and $6.4 million, respectively from guarantor settlement, insurance recoveries and other settlements.

We continue to pursue, investigate and evaluate the assets available of guarantors to collect all amounts due under judgments received in our favor. However, to the extent that such amounts are not determinable, they have not been recognized as recovery income in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Further recoveries under this and other judgments received in our favor 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 uncertainty 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 Claims

In August 2016, a limited liability company member of Carinos Properties, LLC and Unit 6 Partners, LLC, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging the Company breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiff under ERISA with respect to certain property we own in New Mexico. Damages were not specified. In April 2018, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment in the case, but stayed any further action in the case pending the results of related litigation before the state trial court (“State Court”) described below. Management believes plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this claim.

On April 20, 2017, a subsidiary of the Company filed an action against a limited partner in Recorp-New Mexico Limited Partnership LLC (“RNMA I”) with the United States District Court, District of Arizona (“USDC”) seeking declaratory relief that the partner’s limited partnership interest in RNMA I has been properly conveyed to the IMH subsidiary. The USDC dismissed the action and the Company subsidiary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”). The limited partner had disputed the effectiveness of the transfer of his limited partnership interest and the similar transfer of other limited partnership interests in RNMA I to the Company. This limited partner has initiated litigation in the State Court seeking to resolve this dispute in another forum. This matter has been stayed at the Ninth Circuit level pending the litigation described below. Based on the advice of counsel, management believes the transfer of the limited partnership interests by the then-acting general partner was done in accordance with the rights granted to the general partner under the relevant organizational documents, and we believe that it is more likely than not that the court in the above referenced matter will agree with that conclusion. However, if the State Court were to rule that the limited partner interest transfers were ineffective, this could result in the recording of noncontrolling interests in that partnership of approximately $3.1 million as of September 30, 2018. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined with certainty and no amounts have been accrued for this matter in the consolidated financial statements.

In September 2017, the State Court ordered the termination of the receivership over Stockholder, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Stockholder”). Stockholder is the owner of all of the shares of stock in certain corporations that act as the general partner / limited liability company manager of several entities that own land and/or certain water interests in New Mexico.

In December 2017, the State Court entered an interim “stay” order in the Company’s case against judgment debtor David P. Maniatis and his affiliates (“Maniatis”) enjoining the Company from taking any further collection action against Maniatis, pending an accounting of all previous debt collection activities and a trial on certain limited issues involving the calculation of interest and penalties on the original defaulted debt guaranteed by Maniatis. The stay order also temporarily inhibits the Company from effecting the sale or transfer of all or any part of the property previously acquired by the Company through litigation involving Maniatis, including approximately 7,000 acres of land and related water interests in New Mexico, and 111 acres of land in Texas.

The potential range of loss in this matter, if any, is indeterminable. The ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined and no amounts have been accrued for in these consolidated financial statements.

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 receivership over Justin Ranch 123, LLP, alleging breach of contract 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, plus attorney fees and punitive damages. The suit has been stayed pending the outcome of other litigation. 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. The Company believes that any liability it may ultimately incur would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or its result of operations.

11333, Inc. Claim

In 2008, a subsidiary of the Company suffered a loss due to hurricane damage sustained to a property it owned in Galveston, Texas. This property did not have insurance coverage at the time of loss. In March of 2011, the subsidiary filed a claim under an errors and omissions policy with its insurer, Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”), for failure to maintain adequate insurance on the property. The claim which was denied by Lloyd’s and the Company filed a lawsuit with respect to this policy in the United States District Court of Arizona (the “Court”) against Lloyd’s and the Company’s insurance broker, HUB International Insurance Co. (“HUB”). On April 5, 2017, the Court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which the Company has appealed. Lloyd’s and HUB also filed motions seeking reimbursement of attorney fees in the amount of up to $1.2 million and the Company has filed opposing motions. During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Court entered judgments against its subsidiary awarding Lloyd’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $1.2 million and awarding HUB attorney’s fees in the amount of $0.1 million. IMH has filed an amended notice of appeal to include the Court’s rulings on the attorney’s fee awards. Its subsidiary does not have the ability to satisfy these judgments. HUB settled its judgments for attorney’s fees and costs in exchange for a dismissal of 11333, Inc.’s appeal against HUB, which has now been finalized, which results in no payment by 11333, Inc.. Similarly, 11333, Inc. has also made an offer to settle its appeal against Lloyd’s in exchange for a release as to its judgment for attorney’s fees and costs, with 11333, Inc. paying no amounts, which Lloyd’s has tentatively accepted pending review of certain 11333, Inc. financial documentation. IMH is awaiting a response from Lloyd’s. IMH’s appellate brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal was due November 15, 2018, but the parties agreed to an extension of time to finalize the settlement. Based upon the advice of its counsel in this matter, management believes that IMH will not be required to satisfy these judgments on behalf of its subsidiary and as such considers it is more likely than not that the Company will not suffer a loss on this matter. Accordingly, no adjustment relating to this claim has been recorded in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Hotel Fund Obligations

As more fully described in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, if the Hotel Fund has insufficient operating cash flow to pay the Preferred Distribution in a given month, the Company has agreed to provide the funds necessary to pay the Preferred Distribution for such month. Such payments are treated as an additional capital contribution and the Company’s capital account will be increased by such amount. Moreover, we, as the sponsor, have agreed to fund, in the form of common capital contributions, up to 6.0% of gross proceeds as selling commissions and up to 1.0% of gross proceeds as nonaccountable expense reimbursements to broker-dealers based on the capital raised by them for the Hotel Fund. These portions of our common equity in the Hotel Fund are subordinate to the distribution of capital to Preferred Investors in the event of a capital transaction. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, the Company contributed $0.1 million and $0.2 million, respectively and paid commissions of less than $0.1 million under these provisions for each respective period. The ultimate timing and amount of such required shortfall funding is indeterminable and could be material to the Company’s operations and liquidity.

Property Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Receivable

In connection with the sale of certain of our real estate assets in September 2018, the Company negotiated with the buyer that the Company will retain a 50% interest, if any, in the proceeds generated from a long-term TIF development subsidy provided by the sponsoring governmental agency. The TIF was approved by resolution of the applicable governmental agency in August 2018, subject to the finalization of a certain land contribution by one of the unrelated developers in the overall development project, which had not been completed as of September 30, 2018. The Company did not record the effects of this TIF receivable in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

Other

We are subject to oversight by various state and federal regulatory authorities, including, but not limited to, the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions (Banking), and the SEC. Our income tax returns have not been examined by taxing authorities and all statutorily open years remain subject to examination.