Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
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 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 property tax receivables by GLS (generally through the initiation of a foreclosure action). As a result, the Court dismissed certain claims against GLS and narrowed the issues being litigated to 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 by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to prevailing County ordinance. On April 23, 2012, as a result of a petition to discontinue filed by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the remaining claims against GLS. The claims made by plaintiff that can be appealed include the legality of charging and recovering attorney fees and lien revival and filing costs from the class members. Plaintiffs have 30-days to file an appeal. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter. Dynex Capital, Inc. and Dynex Commercial, Inc., a former affiliate of the Company and now known as DCI Commercial, Inc. ("DCI"), are appellees (or respondents) in the matter of Basic Capital Management, Inc. et al. (collectively, “BCM” or the “Plaintiffs”) versus DCI et al. currently pending in the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. The matter was initially filled in the state court in Dallas County, Texas in April 1999 against DCI, and in March 2000, BCM amended the complaint and added the Company as a defendant. The appeal seeks to overturn a judgment rendered by the trial court in the favor of the Company and DCI. Specifically, Plaintiffs are seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment and rendition of judgment against the Company for alleged breach of loan agreements for tenant improvements in the amount of $250. They also seek reversal of the trial court's judgment and rendition of judgment against DCI in favor of BCM under two mutually exclusive damage models, for $2,200 and $25,600, respectively, related to the alleged breach by DCI of a $160,000 “master” loan commitment. Plaintiffs also seek reversal and rendition of a judgment in their favor for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,100. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek a new trial. Even if Plaintiffs were to be successful on appeal, management does not believe the Company would be obligated for any amounts awarded against DCI. Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary of Dynex ("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 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 alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed on February 7, 2005, and was purportedly brought on behalf of a class 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 court rulings, the case proceeded to discovery on the basis of a second amended complaint filed August 6, 2008. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged, 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 a class of purchasers of the Bonds from February 2000 through May 2004. In December 2011, the Defendants entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the Teamsters to settle all claims asserted in the action, as well as any claims that could have been asserted in the action, for $7,500. The Company funded an escrow account for this agreed amount for the benefit of the class in December 2011. During the first quarter of 2012, the District Court approved the settlement and the escrow account will be released to members of the class proportionate to their claims.

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 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 property tax receivables by GLS (generally through the initiation of a foreclosure action). As a result, the Court dismissed certain claims against GLS and narrowed the issues being litigated to 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 by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to prevailing County ordinance. On April 23, 2012, as a result of a petition to discontinue filed by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the remaining claims against GLS. The claims made by plaintiff that can be appealed include the legality of charging and recovering attorney fees and lien revival and filing costs from the class members. Plaintiffs have 30-days to file an appeal. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter.

Dynex Capital, Inc. and Dynex Commercial, Inc., a former affiliate of the Company and now known as DCI Commercial, Inc. ("DCI"), are appellees (or respondents) in the matter of Basic Capital Management, Inc. et al. (collectively, “BCM” or the “Plaintiffs”) versus DCI et al. currently pending in the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas. The matter was initially filled in the state court in Dallas County, Texas in April 1999 against DCI, and in March 2000, BCM amended the complaint and added the Company as a defendant. The appeal seeks to overturn a judgment rendered by the trial court in the favor of the Company and DCI. Specifically, Plaintiffs are seeking reversal of the trial court's judgment and rendition of judgment against the Company for alleged breach of loan agreements for tenant improvements in the amount of $250. They also seek reversal of the trial court's judgment and rendition of judgment against DCI in favor of BCM under two mutually exclusive damage models, for $2,200 and $25,600, respectively, related to the alleged breach by DCI of a $160,000 “master” loan commitment. Plaintiffs also seek reversal and rendition of a judgment in their favor for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,100. Alternatively, Plaintiffs seek a new trial. Even if Plaintiffs were to be successful on appeal, management does not believe the Company would be obligated for any amounts awarded against DCI.

Dynex Capital, Inc., MERIT Securities Corporation, a subsidiary of Dynex ("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 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 alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed on February 7, 2005, and was purportedly brought on behalf of a class 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 court rulings, the case proceeded to discovery on the basis of a second amended complaint filed August 6, 2008. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged, 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 a class of purchasers of the Bonds from February 2000 through May 2004. In December 2011, the Defendants entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the Teamsters to settle all claims asserted in the action, as well as any claims that could have been asserted in the action, for $7,500. The Company funded an escrow account for this agreed amount for the benefit of the class in December 2011. During the first quarter of 2012, the District Court approved the settlement and the escrow account will be released to members of the class proportionate to their claims.