CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Overview Tree.com is involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require it to change its business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on the business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 12, unless otherwise indicated, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company has a litigation settlement accrual of $0.5 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The litigation settlement accrual relates to litigation matters that were either settled or a firm offer for settlement was extended, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable. Specific Matters Intellectual Property Litigation Zillow LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc., pursuant to which all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the "Quinstreet Parties"), pursuant to which all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. This matter went to trial beginning in February 2014, and on March 12, 2014, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the defendants Zillow, Inc., Adchemy, Inc., and NexTag, Inc. did not infringe the two patents referenced above and determined that those patents are invalid due to inventorship defects. The jury found in the Company’s favor on the defendants' counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and antitrust violations. As of March 13, 2014, a formal judgment had not yet been entered in the case and certain issues not before the jury remain to be resolved. The Company believes it have strong grounds for appeal; however, the Company has not yet determined what actions it will take with respect to the verdict or the findings of patent invalidity. The verdict will not impact the Company’s ability to offer its current suite of products and services, and the Company does not expect the verdict to affect its business prospects. Internet Patents Corp. Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company seeking a judgment that it had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. Money Suite The Money Suite Company v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC ("LendingTree") seeking a judgment that it infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,684,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the court stayed this case pending review of the patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. Other Litigation Boschma Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. ("HLC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained an option ARM loan through HLC on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000 settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the settlement fund was made in late 2013. The Company expects administration of the settlement to be completed by the third quarter of 2014. A provision for the remaining $435,000 is included in current liabilities of discontinued operations at December 31, 2013. The impact of the settlement was not material. Mortgage Store, Inc. Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 6CC250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.). On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. The plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged the plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code §17500. The plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. The Company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' appellate brief in April 2013. Oral arguments were heard on this matter on September 25, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of HLC and the time for plaintiffs to further appeal such decision has expired. Dijkstra Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff have reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to the remaining Individual Claims. The trial for the Class Claims has not yet been scheduled by the court. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.6 million and $1.95 million, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. A reserve of $0.6 million and a corresponding insurance recoverable of $0.5 million have been established for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013. Massachusetts Division of Banks On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of March 14, 2014, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations. The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree to adopt various new procedures and practices. The Company has commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. It does not believe its mortgage exchange business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor does it believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, the Company intends to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.

CONTINGENCIES

Overview

Tree.com is involved in legal proceedings on an ongoing basis. In assessing the materiality of a legal proceeding, the Company evaluates, among other factors, the amount of monetary damages claimed, as well as the potential impact of non-monetary remedies sought by plaintiffs (e.g., injunctive relief) that may require it to change its business practices in a manner that could have a material adverse impact on the business. With respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 12, unless otherwise indicated, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of such non-monetary remedies.

As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the Company has a litigation settlement accrual of $0.5 million and $0.5 million, respectively. The litigation settlement accrual relates to litigation matters that were either settled or a firm offer for settlement was extended, thereby establishing an accrual amount that is both probable and reasonably estimable.

Specific Matters

Intellectual Property Litigation

Zillow

LendingTree v. Zillow, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-439. On September 8, 2010, the Company filed an action for patent infringement in the US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., Quinstreet, Inc., Quinstreet Media, Inc. and Adchemy, Inc. The complaint was amended to include Leadpoint, Inc. d/b/a Securerights on September 24, 2010. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants infringe one or both of the Company's patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,385,594, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet," and U.S. Patent No. 6,611,816, entitled "Method and Computer Network for Co-Ordinating a Loan over the Internet." Collectively, the asserted patents cover computer hardware and software used in facilitating business between computer users and multiple lenders on the internet. The defendants in this action asserted various counterclaims against the Company, including the assertion by certain of the defendants of counterclaims alleging illegal monopolization via our maintenance of the asserted patents. In July 2011, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Leadpoint, Inc., pursuant to which all claims against Leadpoint, Inc. and all counter-claims against the Company by Leadpoint, Inc. were dismissed. In November 2012, the Company reached a settlement agreement with Quinstreet, Inc. and Quinstreet Media, Inc. (collectively, the "Quinstreet Parties"), pursuant to which all claims against the Quinstreet Parties and all counterclaims against the Company by the Quinstreet Parties were dismissed. This matter went to trial beginning in February 2014, and on March 12, 2014, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the defendants Zillow, Inc., Adchemy, Inc., and NexTag, Inc. did not infringe the two patents referenced above and determined that those patents are invalid due to inventorship defects. The jury found in the Company’s favor on the defendants' counterclaims alleging inequitable conduct and antitrust violations. As of March 13, 2014, a formal judgment had not yet been entered in the case and certain issues not before the jury remain to be resolved. The Company believes it have strong grounds for appeal; however, the Company has not yet determined what actions it will take with respect to the verdict or the findings of patent invalidity. The verdict will not impact the Company’s ability to offer its current suite of products and services, and the Company does not expect the verdict to affect its business prospects.

Internet Patents Corp.

Internet Patents Corporation f/k/a InsWeb v. Tree.com, Inc., No. C-12-6505 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal.). In December 2012, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company seeking a judgment that it had infringed a patent held by the plaintiff. Process was formally served with respect to this matter in April 2013. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff alleged that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,707,505, entitled "Dynamic Tabs for a Graphical User Interface". On October 25, 2013, the court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the plaintiff's claims failed as a matter of law because the asserted patent is invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on November 7, 2013. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Money Suite

The Money Suite Company v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 1:13-ev-986 (U.S. Dist. Ct, D Del.). In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LendingTree, LLC ("LendingTree") seeking a judgment that it infringed a patent held by plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that LendingTree infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,684,189 for "an apparatus and method using front end network gateways and search criteria for efficient quoting at a remote location". The plaintiff seeks damages (including pre- and post- judgment interest thereon), costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the court stayed this case pending review of the patent by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Company believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

Other Litigation

Boschma

Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal.). On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Home Loan Center, Inc. ("HLC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007 obtained an option ARM loan through HLC on their primary residence located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight complaints in connection with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in Orange County (California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April 2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a $450,000 settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment into the settlement fund was made in late 2013. The Company expects administration of the settlement to be completed by the third quarter of 2014. A provision for the remaining $435,000 is included in current liabilities of discontinued operations at December 31, 2013. The impact of the settlement was not material.

Mortgage Store, Inc.

Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree Loans d/b/a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 6CC250 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.). On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the California Superior Court for Orange County. The plaintiffs, two former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree without adequately disclosing the relationship between them and that HLC charged the plaintiffs higher rates and fees than they otherwise would have been charged. Based upon these factual allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and Professions Code §17500. The plaintiffs purport to represent all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29, 2010. On October 17, 2011, the court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9, 2012. On June 15, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17, 2012. The Company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' appellate brief in April 2013. Oral arguments were heard on this matter on September 25, 2013. On December 11, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of HLC and the time for plaintiffs to further appeal such decision has expired.

Dijkstra

Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV). On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this putative class action in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"), violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia. On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC and the plaintiff have reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to the remaining Individual Claims. The trial for the Class Claims has not yet been scheduled by the court. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intends to defend against this action vigorously.

The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.6 million and $1.95 million, of which some or all may be covered by insurance. A reserve of $0.6 million and a corresponding insurance recoverable of $0.5 million have been established for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.

Massachusetts Division of Banks

On February 11, 2011, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (the "Division") delivered a Report of Examination/Inspection to LendingTree, which identified various alleged violations of Massachusetts and federal laws, including the alleged insufficient delivery by LendingTree of various disclosures to its customers. On October 14, 2011, the Division provided a proposed Consent Agreement and Order to settle the Division's allegations, which the Division had shared with other state mortgage lending regulators. Thirty-four of such state mortgage lending regulators (the "Joining Regulators") indicated that if LendingTree would enter into the Consent Agreement and Order, they would agree not to pursue any analogous allegations that they otherwise might assert. As of March 14, 2014, none of the Joining Regulators have asserted any such allegations.

The proposed Consent Agreement and Order calls for a fine to be allocated among the Division and the Joining Regulators and for LendingTree to adopt various new procedures and practices. The Company has commenced negotiations toward an acceptable Consent Agreement and Order. It does not believe its mortgage exchange business violated any federal or state mortgage lending laws; nor does it believe that any past operations of the mortgage business have resulted in a material violation of any such laws. Should the Division or any Joining Regulator bring any actions relating to the matters alleged in the February 2011 Report of Examination/Inspection, the Company intends to defend against such actions vigorously. The range of possible loss is estimated to be between $0.5 million and $6.5 million, and a reserve of $0.5 million has been established for this matter in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2013.