Legal Matters	6 Months Ended
May. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	Legal Matters Nevada Development Contract Litigation. KB HOME Nevada Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ours (“KB Nevada”), is a defendant in a case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada entitled Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC, Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al. v. KB HOME Nevada Inc. In 2007, Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC (“LVDA”) agreed to purchase from KB Nevada approximately 83 acres of land located near Las Vegas, Nevada. LVDA subsequently assigned its rights to Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Essex”). KB Nevada and Essex entered into a development agreement relating to certain major infrastructure improvements. LVDA’s and Essex’s complaint, initially filed in 2008, alleged that KB Nevada breached the development agreement, and also alleged that KB Nevada fraudulently induced them to enter into the purchase and development agreements. LVDA’s and Essex’s lenders subsequently filed related actions that were consolidated into the LVDA/Essex matter. The consolidated plaintiffs sought rescission of the agreements or, in the alternative, compensatory damages of $55 million plus unspecified punitive damages and other damages, and interest charges in excess of $41 million (“Claimed Damages”). KB Nevada has denied the allegations, and believes it has meritorious defenses to the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims. On March 15, 2013, the court entered orders denying the consolidated plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granting the majority of KB Nevada’s motions for summary judgment, eliminating, among other of the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims, those for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. With the court’s decisions, the only remaining claims against KB Nevada are for contract damages and rescission. In August 2013, the court granted motions that further narrowed the scope of the Claimed Damages. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain — we believe it is reasonably possible that the loss in this matter could range from zero to approximately $55 million plus prejudgment interest, which could be material to our consolidated financial statements — KB Nevada believes it will be successful in defending against the consolidated plaintiffs’ remaining claims and that the consolidated plaintiffs will not be awarded rescission or damages. The non-jury trial, originally set for September 2012, is presently scheduled for September 15, 2015. Wage and Hour Litigation. We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, are a defendant in lawsuits that allege violations of federal and state wage and hour statutes. In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class that, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs. On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December 2015. A trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in the Edwards case is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or later. In September 2013, 11 of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleges violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. As of the date of this report, the putative class consists of 241 members, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who were sales representatives from September 2009 to the present. The Bejenaru court has not certified the case as a class action. Depending on the Bejenaru court’s decisions in the matter, the putative class could increase in size and include other individuals, and the case could be certified as a class action. In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case and the Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in the lawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain and we are unable to estimate the amount or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. However, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. Other Matters. In addition to the specific proceeding described above, we are involved in other litigation and regulatory proceedings incidental to our business that are in various procedural stages. We believe that the accruals we have recorded for probable and reasonably estimable losses with respect to these proceedings are adequate and that, as of May 31, 2015, it was not reasonably possible that an additional material loss had been incurred in an amount in excess of the estimated amounts already recognized in our consolidated financial statements. We evaluate our accruals for litigation and regulatory proceedings at least quarterly and, as appropriate, adjust them to reflect (a) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments; (b) the advice and analyses of counsel; and (c) the assumptions and judgment of management. Similar factors and considerations are used in establishing new accruals for proceedings as to which losses have become probable and reasonably estimable at the time an evaluation is made. Based on our experience, we believe that the amounts that may be claimed or alleged against us in these proceedings are not a meaningful indicator of our potential liability. The outcome of any of these proceedings, including the defense and other litigation-related costs and expenses we may incur, however, is inherently uncertain and could differ significantly from the estimate reflected in a related accrual, if made. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of any proceeding, if in excess of a related accrual or if no accrual had been made, could be material to our consolidated financial statements.

Legal Matters

Nevada Development Contract Litigation. KB HOME Nevada Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ours (“KB Nevada”), is a defendant in a case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada entitled Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC, Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al. v. KB HOME Nevada Inc. In 2007, Las Vegas Development Associates, LLC (“LVDA”) agreed to purchase from KB Nevada approximately 83 acres of land located near Las Vegas, Nevada. LVDA subsequently assigned its rights to Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Essex”). KB Nevada and Essex entered into a development agreement relating to certain major infrastructure improvements. LVDA’s and Essex’s complaint, initially filed in 2008, alleged that KB Nevada breached the development agreement, and also alleged that KB Nevada fraudulently induced them to enter into the purchase and development agreements. LVDA’s and Essex’s lenders subsequently filed related actions that were consolidated into the LVDA/Essex matter. The consolidated plaintiffs sought rescission of the agreements or, in the alternative, compensatory damages of $55 million plus unspecified punitive damages and other damages, and interest charges in excess of $41 million (“Claimed Damages”). KB Nevada has denied the allegations, and believes it has meritorious defenses to the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims. On March 15, 2013, the court entered orders denying the consolidated plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and granting the majority of KB Nevada’s motions for summary judgment, eliminating, among other of the consolidated plaintiffs’ claims, those for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. With the court’s decisions, the only remaining claims against KB Nevada are for contract damages and rescission. In August 2013, the court granted motions that further narrowed the scope of the Claimed Damages. While the ultimate outcome is uncertain — we believe it is reasonably possible that the loss in this matter could range from zero to approximately $55 million plus prejudgment interest, which could be material to our consolidated financial statements — KB Nevada believes it will be successful in defending against the consolidated plaintiffs’ remaining claims and that the consolidated plaintiffs will not be awarded rescission or damages. The non-jury trial, originally set for September 2012, is presently scheduled for September 15, 2015.

Wage and Hour Litigation. We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, are a defendant in lawsuits that allege violations of federal and state wage and hour statutes. In May 2011, a group of current and former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The lawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives and failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 206-07). In September 2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class that, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs. On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trial involving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December 2015. A trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in the Edwards case is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or later.

In September 2013, 11 of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L. Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleges violations of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives. As of the date of this report, the putative class consists of 241 members, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who were sales representatives from September 2009 to the present. The Bejenaru court has not certified the case as a class action. Depending on the Bejenaru court’s decisions in the matter, the putative class could increase in size and include other individuals, and the case could be certified as a class action.

In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case and the Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages, penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in the lawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The ultimate outcome of these matters is uncertain and we are unable to estimate the amount or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. However, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Other Matters. In addition to the specific proceeding described above, we are involved in other litigation and regulatory proceedings incidental to our business that are in various procedural stages. We believe that the accruals we have recorded for probable and reasonably estimable losses with respect to these proceedings are adequate and that, as of May 31, 2015, it was not reasonably possible that an additional material loss had been incurred in an amount in excess of the estimated amounts already recognized in our consolidated financial statements. We evaluate our accruals for litigation and regulatory proceedings at least quarterly and, as appropriate, adjust them to reflect (a) the facts and circumstances known to us at the time, including information regarding negotiations, settlements, rulings and other relevant events and developments; (b) the advice and analyses of counsel; and (c) the assumptions and judgment of management. Similar factors and considerations are used in establishing new accruals for proceedings as to which losses have become probable and reasonably estimable at the time an evaluation is made. Based on our experience, we believe that the amounts that may be claimed or alleged against us in these proceedings are not a meaningful indicator of our potential liability. The outcome of any of these proceedings, including the defense and other litigation-related costs and expenses we may incur, however, is inherently uncertain and could differ significantly from the estimate reflected in a related accrual, if made. Therefore, it is possible that the ultimate outcome of any proceeding, if in excess of a related accrual or if no accrual had been made, could be material to our consolidated financial statements.