Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, including those described below. Although the ultimate outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, and the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes, based on current knowledge, that the resolution of any of these proceedings, including those described below, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, the resolution of any of the proceedings described below could have a material impact on consolidated results of operations or cash flows in a given future reporting period as the proceedings are resolved. One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc. (“GLS”), and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania are defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Court”). Between 1995 and 1997, GLS purchased from Allegheny County delinquent property tax receivables for properties located in the County. The plaintiffs in this matter have alleged that GLS improperly recovered or sought recovery for certain fees, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with GLS' collection of the property tax receivables. The Court granted class action status in this matter in August 2007. In February 2011, as a result of motions filed by GLS, the Court refined the class to include only owners of real estate in the County of Allegheny who paid an attorneys' fee between 1996 and 2003 in connection with the forced collection of delinquent Allegheny County property taxes. As a result, the Court has dismissed all claims against GLS with the exception of whether attorneys' fees and related expenses charged by GLS in connection with the collection of the receivables was reasonable. Such attorneys' fees and related expenses were assessed pursuant to prevailing County ordinance. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter. No trial date has been set. On April 1, 2011 in the matter styled Basic Capital Management et al (the “BCM Plaintiffs”) versus Dynex Commercial, Inc. (“DCI”) and Dynex Capital, Inc. (DCI and the Company, together, the “Respondents”), the Supreme Court of Texas partially reversed the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas (the “Court of Appeals”) and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for consideration of arguments not previously reached by the Court of Appeals. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas was filed by the BCM Plaintiffs. Dynex Capital and DCI have filed a motion to reconsider with the Supreme Court of Texas. The Company anticipates that the Supreme court will grant or deny its motion to reconsider by the end of 2011. For further discussion of this litigation, see the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011. Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary ("MERIT"), and the former President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., (together, the "Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action brought by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund (the "Teamsters") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"). The original complaint, which was filed on February 7, 2005, alleged violations of the federal securities laws and was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds (the "Bonds"), which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans. After a series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by the Company and MERIT, on February 22, 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against the Company and MERIT. The Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008, which essentially restated the same allegations as the original complaint and added the Company’s former President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer as defendants. The District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Teamsters seek unspecified damages and allege, among other things, fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the Bonds. On March 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Teamsters' motion to certify the class for this action. Defendants sought immediate appeal of the certification order but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petition for immediate appeal. Defendants also had filed a motion to dismiss for fraud on the court based on statements attributed to alleged confidential witnesses in the amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion on June 21, 2011. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on July 15, 2011; that motion will be fully briefed on September 6, 2011. The case is currently scheduled for trial in November 2011. The Company has evaluated the allegations made in the amended complaint and continues to believe them to be without merit and is vigorously defending itself in this matter

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to various legal proceedings, including those described below. Although the ultimate outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, and the results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes, based on current knowledge, that the resolution of any of these proceedings, including those described below, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or liquidity. However, the resolution of any of the proceedings described below could have a material impact on consolidated results of operations or cash flows in a given future reporting period as the proceedings are resolved.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, GLS Capital, Inc. (“GLS”), and the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania are defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the “Court”). Between 1995 and 1997, GLS purchased from Allegheny County delinquent property tax receivables for properties located in the County. The plaintiffs in this matter have alleged that GLS improperly recovered or sought recovery for certain fees, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with GLS' collection of the property tax receivables. The Court granted class action status in this matter in August 2007. In February 2011, as a result of motions filed by GLS, the Court refined the class to include only owners of real estate in the County of Allegheny who paid an attorneys' fee between 1996 and 2003 in connection with the forced collection of delinquent Allegheny County property taxes. As a result, the Court has dismissed all claims against GLS with the exception of whether attorneys' fees and related expenses charged by GLS in connection with the collection of the receivables was reasonable. Such attorneys' fees and related expenses were assessed pursuant to prevailing County ordinance. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter. No trial date has been set.

On April 1, 2011 in the matter styled Basic Capital Management et al (the “BCM Plaintiffs”) versus Dynex Commercial, Inc. (“DCI”) and Dynex Capital, Inc. (DCI and the Company, together, the “Respondents”), the Supreme Court of Texas partially reversed the Fifth Court of Appeals at Dallas (the “Court of Appeals”) and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for consideration of arguments not previously reached by the Court of Appeals. The appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas was filed by the BCM Plaintiffs. Dynex Capital and DCI have filed a motion to reconsider with the Supreme Court of Texas. The Company anticipates that the Supreme court will grant or deny its motion to reconsider by the end of 2011. For further discussion of this litigation, see the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary ("MERIT"), and the former President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital, Inc., (together, the "Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action brought by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund (the "Teamsters") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"). The original complaint, which was filed on February 7, 2005, alleged violations of the federal securities laws and was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds (the "Bonds"), which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans. After a series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by the Company and MERIT, on February 22, 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against the Company and MERIT. The Teamsters filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2008, which essentially restated the same allegations as the original complaint and added the Company’s former President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer as defendants. The District Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Teamsters seek unspecified damages and allege, among other things, fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the issuance of and subsequent reporting related to the Bonds.

On March 7, 2011, the District Court granted the Teamsters' motion to certify the class for this action. Defendants sought immediate appeal of the certification order but the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petition for immediate appeal. Defendants also had filed a motion to dismiss for fraud on the court based on statements attributed to alleged confidential witnesses in the amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion on June 21, 2011. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on July 15, 2011; that motion will be fully briefed on September 6, 2011. The case is currently scheduled for trial in November 2011. The Company has evaluated the allegations made in the amended complaint and continues to believe them to be without merit and is vigorously defending itself in this matter