COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation – New Residential may, from time to time, be involved in various disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations, some of which arise in the ordinary course of business. As of September 30, 2015, New Residential is not subject to any material litigation, individually or in the aggregate, nor, to its knowledge, is any material litigation or regulatory inquiry or investigation that would likely result in a material adverse effect currently threatened against New Residential, except as described below. In addition, New Residential is not aware of any unasserted claims that it believes are material and probable of assertion where the risk of loss is expected to be reasonably possible. Following the HLSS Acquisition (see Note 1 for related defined terms), material potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings, of which New Residential is currently aware, are as follows. New Residential has not accrued losses in connection with these legal contingencies because it does not believe there is a probable and reasonably estimable loss. Furthermore, New Residential cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential loss related to these legal contingencies at this time. Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these three lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the “New York Action.” On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the New York Action. On September 14, 2015, the court in the New York Action ordered lead plaintiffs to file an amended class action complaint by November 9, 2015. The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS’s risk management and internal controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS’s disclosures were materially false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen’s servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS’s contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls and (iv) certain related party transactions. The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS’s financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS’s August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the New York Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen’s business practices. New Residential intends to vigorously defend the New York Action. Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed purportedly on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation naming as defendants HLSS and certain current and former directors and officers of Ocwen, including former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, entitled (i) Sokolowski v. Erbey, et al., No. 9:14-CV-81601 (S.D. Fla.), filed on December 24, 2014 (the “Sokolowski Action”), and (ii) Moncavage v. Faris, et al., No. 2015CA003244 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct.), filed on March 20, 2015 (collectively, with the Sokolowski Action, the “Ocwen Derivative Actions”). The original complaint in the Sokolowski Action named as defendants certain current and former directors and officers of Ocwen, including former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey. On February 11, 2015, plaintiff in the Sokolowski Action filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants, including HLSS. The Ocwen Derivative Actions assert a cause of action for aiding and abetting certain alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Florida law against HLSS and others, and claim that HLSS (i) substantially assisted Ocwen’s alleged wrongful conduct by purchasing Ocwen’s mortgage servicing rights and (ii) received improper benefits as a result of its business dealings with Ocwen due to Mr. Erbey’s purported control over both HLSS and Ocwen. Additionally, the Sokolowski Action asserts a cause of action for unjust enrichment against HLSS and others. On March 11, 2015, plaintiff David Rattner filed a shareholder derivative action purportedly on behalf of HLSS entitled Rattner v. Van Vlack, et al., No. 2015CA002833 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct.) (the “HLSS Derivative Action”). The lawsuit names as defendants HLSS directors John P. Van Vlack, Robert J. McGinnis, Kerry Kennedy, Richard J. Lochrie, and David B. Reiner (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), New Residential Investment Corp., and Hexagon Merger Sub, Ltd. The HLSS Derivative Action alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of due care, diligence, loyalty, honesty and good faith and the duty to act in the best interests of HLSS under Cayman law and claims that the Director Defendants approved a proposed merger with New Residential Investment Corp. that (i) provided inadequate consideration to HLSS’s shareholders, (ii) included unfair deal protection devices, (iii) and was the result of an inadequate process due to conflicts of interest. On July 8, 2015, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On September 15, 2014, the SEC instituted an investigation into HLSS’s restatement of its consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 and for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 and disclosures concerning related party transactions (the “HLSS Investigation”). HLSS agreed to resolve such matter by consenting to the entry of a Cease and Desist Order, without admitting or denying that HLSS violated Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder, and to a settlement payment of $1.5 million to the SEC. On October 5, 2015, the terms of the settlement were approved and accepted by the SEC. Pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, New Residential acquired substantially all of the assets of HLSS and assumed substantially all of the liabilities of HLSS, including the obligation for the aforementioned settlement payment. The matter giving rise to the HLSS Investigation and related settlement is unrelated to any activities of New Residential. During the first three quarters of 2015, through their investment manager, certain bondholders (the “HSART Bondholders”) alleged that events of default had occurred under a debt issuance (HSART, see Notes 1 and 11) secured by a portion of the servicer advances acquired from HLSS and that, as a result, the HSART Bondholders were due additional interest under the related agreements. In February 2015, in response to such allegations, instead of releasing such amounts to the New Residential subsidiary that sponsors the HSART transaction entitled thereto, the trustee of HSART began to withhold, monthly, such interest (the “Withheld Funds”) so that such amounts were reserved in the event that it was determined that any of the alleged events of default had occurred. On August 28, 2015, the trustee commenced a legal proceeding requesting instruction from the court regarding the alleged defaults and the disposition of the Withheld Funds. On October 2, 2015, the notes held by the HSART Bondholders were repaid in full. On October 14, 2015, the court ruled that no event of default had occurred under HSART, authorized the trustee to release the Withheld Funds and dismissed the legal proceeding. As a result of this ruling, $92.7 million was released from restricted cash accounts related to HSART and is now available for unrestricted use by New Residential. HLSS has been and continues to be subject to other inquiries by government and other entities, as disclosed in HLSS’s filings with the SEC. New Residential is, from time to time, subject to inquiries by government entities. New Residential currently does not believe any of these inquiries would result in a material adverse effect on New Residential’s business. Indemnifications – In the normal course of business, New Residential and its subsidiaries enter into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties and that provide general indemnifications. New Residential’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against New Residential that have not yet occurred. However, based on Newcastle’s and its own experience, New Residential expects the risk of material loss to be remote. Capital Commitments — As of September 30, 2015, New Residential had outstanding capital commitments related to investments in the following investment types (also refer to Note 18 for additional capital commitments entered into subsequent to September 30, 2015): Excess MSRs — As of September 30, 2015, New Residential had outstanding capital commitments related to the acquisition of Excess MSRs on portfolios of Agency residential mortgage loans as discussed in Note 18. See Notes 4 and 5 for information on New Residential’s investments in Excess MSRs. Servicer Advances — New Residential and third-party co-investors agreed to purchase future servicer advances related to Non-Agency mortgage loans. The actual amount of future advances purchased will be based on: (a) the credit and prepayment performance of the underlying loans, (b) the amount of advances recoverable prior to liquidation of the related collateral and (c) the percentage of the loans with respect to which no additional advance obligations are made. The actual amount of future advances is subject to significant uncertainty. See Note 6 for information on New Residential’s investments in servicer advances. Residential Mortgage Loans — As part of its investment in residential mortgage loans, New Residential may be required to outlay capital. These capital outflows primarily consist of advance escrow and tax payments, residential maintenance and property disposition fees. The actual amount of these outflows is subject to significant uncertainty. See Note 8 for information on New Residential’s investments in residential mortgage loans. Debt Covenants — New Residential’s debt obligations contain various customary debt covenants (Note 11). Certain Tax-Related Covenants — If New Residential is treated as a successor to Newcastle under applicable U.S. federal income tax rules, and if Newcastle fails to qualify as a REIT, New Residential could be prohibited from electing to be a REIT. Accordingly, Newcastle has (i) represented that it has no knowledge of any fact or circumstance that would cause New Residential to fail to qualify as a REIT, (ii) covenanted to use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with New Residential as necessary to enable New Residential to qualify for taxation as a REIT and receive customary legal opinions concerning REIT status, including providing information and representations to New Residential and its tax counsel with respect to the composition of Newcastle’s income and assets, the composition of its stockholders, and its operation as a REIT; and (iii) covenanted to use its reasonable best efforts to maintain its REIT status for each of Newcastle’s taxable years ending on or before December 31, 2014 (unless Newcastle obtains an opinion from a nationally recognized tax counsel or a private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that Newcastle’s failure to maintain its REIT status will not cause New Residential to fail to qualify as a REIT under the successor REIT rule referred to above). Additionally, New Residential covenanted to use its reasonable best efforts to qualify for taxation as a REIT for its taxable year ended December 31, 2013.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation – New Residential may, from time to time, be involved in various disputes, litigation and regulatory inquiries and investigations, some of which arise in the ordinary course of business. As of September 30, 2015, New Residential is not subject to any material litigation, individually or in the aggregate, nor, to its knowledge, is any material litigation or regulatory inquiry or investigation that would likely result in a material adverse effect currently threatened against New Residential, except as described below. In addition, New Residential is not aware of any unasserted claims that it believes are material and probable of assertion where the risk of loss is expected to be reasonably possible.

Following the HLSS Acquisition (see Note 1 for related defined terms), material potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings, of which New Residential is currently aware, are as follows. New Residential has not accrued losses in connection with these legal contingencies because it does not believe there is a probable and reasonably estimable loss. Furthermore, New Residential cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential loss related to these legal contingencies at this time.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these three lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, which is referred to as the “New York Action.” On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel were appointed in the New York Action. On September 14, 2015, the court in the New York Action ordered lead plaintiffs to file an amended class action complaint by November 9, 2015.

The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS’s risk management and internal controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS’s disclosures were materially false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen’s servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS’s contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls and (iv) certain related party transactions. The consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS’s financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on HLSS’s August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the New York Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding governmental investigations of Ocwen’s business practices. New Residential intends to vigorously defend the New York Action.

Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed purportedly on behalf of Ocwen Financial Corporation naming as defendants HLSS and certain current and former directors and officers of Ocwen, including former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey, entitled (i) Sokolowski v. Erbey, et al., No. 9:14-CV-81601 (S.D. Fla.), filed on December 24, 2014 (the “Sokolowski Action”), and (ii) Moncavage v. Faris, et al., No. 2015CA003244 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct.), filed on March 20, 2015 (collectively, with the Sokolowski Action, the “Ocwen Derivative Actions”). The original complaint in the Sokolowski Action named as defendants certain current and former directors and officers of Ocwen, including former HLSS Chairman William C. Erbey. On February 11, 2015, plaintiff in the Sokolowski Action filed an amended complaint naming additional defendants, including HLSS. The Ocwen Derivative Actions assert a cause of action for aiding and abetting certain alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under Florida law against HLSS and others, and claim that HLSS (i) substantially assisted Ocwen’s alleged wrongful conduct by purchasing Ocwen’s mortgage servicing rights and (ii) received improper benefits as a result of its business dealings with Ocwen due to Mr. Erbey’s purported control over both HLSS and Ocwen. Additionally, the Sokolowski Action asserts a cause of action for unjust enrichment against HLSS and others.

On March 11, 2015, plaintiff David Rattner filed a shareholder derivative action purportedly on behalf of HLSS entitled Rattner v. Van Vlack, et al., No. 2015CA002833 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct.) (the “HLSS Derivative Action”). The lawsuit names as defendants HLSS directors John P. Van Vlack, Robert J. McGinnis, Kerry Kennedy, Richard J. Lochrie, and David B. Reiner (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), New Residential Investment Corp., and Hexagon Merger Sub, Ltd. The HLSS Derivative Action alleges that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of due care, diligence, loyalty, honesty and good faith and the duty to act in the best interests of HLSS under Cayman law and claims that the Director Defendants approved a proposed merger with New Residential Investment Corp. that (i) provided inadequate consideration to HLSS’s shareholders, (ii) included unfair deal protection devices, (iii) and was the result of an inadequate process due to conflicts of interest. On July 8, 2015, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On September 15, 2014, the SEC instituted an investigation into HLSS’s restatement of its consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 and for the quarter ended March 31, 2014 and disclosures concerning related party transactions (the “HLSS Investigation”). HLSS agreed to resolve such matter by consenting to the entry of a Cease and Desist Order, without admitting or denying that HLSS violated Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder, and to a settlement payment of $1.5 million to the SEC. On October 5, 2015, the terms of the settlement were approved and accepted by the SEC. Pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, New Residential acquired substantially all of the assets of HLSS and assumed substantially all of the liabilities of HLSS, including the obligation for the aforementioned settlement payment. The matter giving rise to the HLSS Investigation and related settlement is unrelated to any activities of New Residential.

During the first three quarters of 2015, through their investment manager, certain bondholders (the “HSART Bondholders”) alleged that events of default had occurred under a debt issuance (HSART, see Notes 1 and 11) secured by a portion of the servicer advances acquired from HLSS and that, as a result, the HSART Bondholders were due additional interest under the related agreements. In February 2015, in response to such allegations, instead of releasing such amounts to the New Residential subsidiary that sponsors the HSART transaction entitled thereto, the trustee of HSART began to withhold, monthly, such interest (the “Withheld Funds”) so that such amounts were reserved in the event that it was determined that any of the alleged events of default had occurred. On August 28, 2015, the trustee commenced a legal proceeding requesting instruction from the court regarding the alleged defaults and the disposition of the Withheld Funds.

On October 2, 2015, the notes held by the HSART Bondholders were repaid in full. On October 14, 2015, the court ruled that no event of default had occurred under HSART, authorized the trustee to release the Withheld Funds and dismissed the legal proceeding. As a result of this ruling, $92.7 million was released from restricted cash accounts related to HSART and is now available for unrestricted use by New Residential.

HLSS has been and continues to be subject to other inquiries by government and other entities, as disclosed in HLSS’s filings with the SEC. New Residential is, from time to time, subject to inquiries by government entities. New Residential currently does not believe any of these inquiries would result in a material adverse effect on New Residential’s business.

Indemnifications – In the normal course of business, New Residential and its subsidiaries enter into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties and that provide general indemnifications. New Residential’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against New Residential that have not yet occurred. However, based on Newcastle’s and its own experience, New Residential expects the risk of material loss to be remote.

Capital Commitments — As of September 30, 2015, New Residential had outstanding capital commitments related to investments in the following investment types (also refer to Note 18 for additional capital commitments entered into subsequent to September 30, 2015):

Excess MSRs — As of September 30, 2015, New Residential had outstanding capital commitments related to the acquisition of Excess MSRs on portfolios of Agency residential mortgage loans as discussed in Note 18. See Notes 4 and 5 for information on New Residential’s investments in Excess MSRs.

Servicer Advances — New Residential and third-party co-investors agreed to purchase future servicer advances related to Non-Agency mortgage loans. The actual amount of future advances purchased will be based on: (a) the credit and prepayment performance of the underlying loans, (b) the amount of advances recoverable prior to liquidation of the related collateral and (c) the percentage of the loans with respect to which no additional advance obligations are made. The actual amount of future advances is subject to significant uncertainty. See Note 6 for information on New Residential’s investments in servicer advances.

Residential Mortgage Loans — As part of its investment in residential mortgage loans, New Residential may be required to outlay capital. These capital outflows primarily consist of advance escrow and tax payments, residential maintenance and property disposition fees. The actual amount of these outflows is subject to significant uncertainty. See Note 8 for information on New Residential’s investments in residential mortgage loans.

Debt Covenants — New Residential’s debt obligations contain various customary debt covenants (Note 11).

Certain Tax-Related Covenants — If New Residential is treated as a successor to Newcastle under applicable U.S. federal income tax rules, and if Newcastle fails to qualify as a REIT, New Residential could be prohibited from electing to be a REIT. Accordingly, Newcastle has (i) represented that it has no knowledge of any fact or circumstance that would cause New Residential to fail to qualify as a REIT, (ii) covenanted to use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with New Residential as necessary to enable New Residential to qualify for taxation as a REIT and receive customary legal opinions concerning REIT status, including providing information and representations to New Residential and its tax counsel with respect to the composition of Newcastle’s income and assets, the composition of its stockholders, and its operation as a REIT; and (iii) covenanted to use its reasonable best efforts to maintain its REIT status for each of Newcastle’s taxable years ending on or before December 31, 2014 (unless Newcastle obtains an opinion from a nationally recognized tax counsel or a private letter ruling from the IRS to the effect that Newcastle’s failure to maintain its REIT status will not cause New Residential to fail to qualify as a REIT under the successor REIT rule referred to above). Additionally, New Residential covenanted to use its reasonable best efforts to qualify for taxation as a REIT for its taxable year ended December 31, 2013.