Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations. We do not believe the results of these audits or investigations will be material at this time. We are also in litigation with governmental agencies regarding certain appraisal matters. With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, or investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred. We have $3.4 million as of June 30, 2012 and $6.9 million as of December 31, 2011 reserved for litigation and regulatory contingency matters. FDIC On May 9, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), f/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”) and several of its current and former affiliates (the "defendants"). The FDIC complaint alleged that eAppraiseIT was grossly negligent and breached its contract with WaMu in the provision of appraisal services in 2006 and 2007 relating to 194 residential mortgage loans. On November 14, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's gross negligence, alter ego, single business enterprise and joint venture claims, and a portion of the breach of contract claim. On November 30, 2011, the FDIC filed its first amended complaint, alleging only breach of contract claims and naming only CVS f/k/a eAppraiseIT and its parent CoreLogic Real Estate Solutions, LLC f/k/a First American Real Estate Solutions, LLC as Defendants. FDIC seeks to recover losses of at least $129.0 million it alleges WaMu suffered on loans allegedly related to the appraisal services. On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's $16.0 million breach of contract claim related to 26 appraisal services allegedly provided before the effective date of the WaMu - eAppraiseIT Agreement. On February 16, 2012, the FDIC filed a second amended complaint reasserting that claim. On April 25, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss that $16.0 million claim with prejudice. The Company intends to defend against the remaining claims vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. New York Attorney General On November 1, 2007, the New York Attorney General filed a complaint in New York state court against First American Corporation (“First American”) and eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”). CoreLogic and its subsidiary, CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), are the successors in interest to First American and eAppraiseIT. The lawsuit concerns appraisal services eAppraiseIT obtained for Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”) in New York in 2006-2007. The Attorney General asserts that eAppraiseIT acceded to pressure from WaMu in the spring of 2007 and agreed to use a panel of appraisers chosen by WaMu's loan origination staff because they allegedly provided opinions of value that would allow loans to close and that First American and eAppraiseIT falsely represented to the public that the appraisals produced through their efforts were independent of the lender and in compliance with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The Attorney General subsequently dropped its damages claims, but continues to seek civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, and unspecified injunctive relief. On November 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals of New York issued a divided ruling affirming lower court decisions denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the Attorney General's claims are pre-empted by federal law. On April 16, 2012, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals decision. The bench trial for this matter began on June 13, 2012 in New York state trial court and is currently ongoing on a schedule of several days of testimony per month. The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim. RESPA Class Action On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”) and First American eAppraiseIT (“eAppraiseIT”) alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint was largely based on the above-described complaint filed by the New York Attorney General and alleged conspiracies between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu and on March 9, 2009 and August 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to seek appeal of that decision. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. CVS intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. FCRA Class Action On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit. On September 20, 2011, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. We have denied the allegations and are defending against this claim vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. Separation As part of the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities. In the Separation and Distribution Agreement, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary in accordance with GAAP. At June 30, 2012, no reserves were considered necessary. In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's financial services business with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations. We do not believe the results of these audits or investigations will be material at this time. We are also in litigation with governmental agencies regarding certain appraisal matters.

With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, or investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred.

We have $3.4 million as of June 30, 2012 and $6.9 million as of December 31, 2011 reserved for litigation and regulatory contingency matters.

FDIC

On May 9, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), f/k/a eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”) and several of its current and former affiliates (the "defendants").

The FDIC complaint alleged that eAppraiseIT was grossly negligent and breached its contract with WaMu in the provision of appraisal services in 2006 and 2007 relating to 194 residential mortgage loans. On November 14, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's gross negligence, alter ego, single business enterprise and joint venture claims, and a portion of the breach of contract claim. On November 30, 2011, the FDIC filed its first amended complaint, alleging only breach of contract claims and naming only CVS f/k/a eAppraiseIT and its parent CoreLogic Real Estate Solutions, LLC f/k/a First American Real Estate Solutions, LLC as Defendants. FDIC seeks to recover losses of at least $129.0 million it alleges WaMu suffered on loans allegedly related to the appraisal services. On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's $16.0 million breach of contract claim related to 26 appraisal services allegedly provided before the effective date of the WaMu - eAppraiseIT Agreement. On February 16, 2012, the FDIC filed a second amended complaint reasserting that claim. On April 25, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss that $16.0 million claim with prejudice.

The Company intends to defend against the remaining claims vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

New York Attorney General

On November 1, 2007, the New York Attorney General filed a complaint in New York state court against First American Corporation (“First American”) and eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”). CoreLogic and its subsidiary, CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), are the successors in interest to First American and eAppraiseIT.

The lawsuit concerns appraisal services eAppraiseIT obtained for Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”) in New York in 2006-2007. The Attorney General asserts that eAppraiseIT acceded to pressure from WaMu in the spring of 2007 and agreed to use a panel of appraisers chosen by WaMu's loan origination staff because they allegedly provided opinions of value that would allow loans to close and that First American and eAppraiseIT falsely represented to the public that the appraisals produced through their efforts were independent of the lender and in compliance with Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The Attorney General subsequently dropped its damages claims, but continues to seek civil penalties, restitution, disgorgement, and unspecified injunctive relief. On November 22, 2011, the Court of Appeals of New York issued a divided ruling affirming lower court decisions denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the Attorney General's claims are pre-empted by federal law. On April 16, 2012, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals decision. The bench trial for this matter began on June 13, 2012 in New York state trial court and is currently ongoing on a schedule of several days of testimony per month.

The Company intends to defend against these claims vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim.

RESPA Class Action

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”) and First American eAppraiseIT (“eAppraiseIT”) alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint was largely based on the above-described complaint filed by the New York Attorney General and alleged conspiracies between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu and on March 9, 2009 and August 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to seek appeal of that decision. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order.

CVS intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

FCRA Class Action

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Teletrack, Inc. ("Teletrack"), one of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit. On September 20, 2011, we filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. We have denied the allegations and are defending against this claim vigorously; however, we may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

Separation

As part of the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities.

In the Separation and Distribution Agreement, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary in accordance with GAAP.

At June 30, 2012, no reserves were considered necessary.

In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's financial services business with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.