Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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 ("Allegheny County") 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 Allegheny County 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 were reasonable. Such attorneys' fees and related expenses were assessed by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to prevailing Allegheny County ordinance. On April 23, 2012, as a result of a petition to discontinue filed by the plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the remaining claims against GLS. The claims made by plaintiff that can be appealed include the legality of charging and recovering attorneys' fees and lien revival and filing costs from the class members. Plaintiff has not yet appealed the Court's ruling but the Company expects them to do so. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter. The Company, GLS, and Allegheny County are named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in June 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The proposed class in this action consists of owners of real estate in Allegheny County whose property is or has been subject to a tax lien filed by Allegheny County that Allegheny County either retained or sold to GLS and who were billed by Allegheny County or GLS for attorneys' fees, interest, or prothonotary fees and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003, in connection with attempts to collect delinquent real estate taxes. The putative class allegations are that Allegheny County, GLS, and the Company violated the class's constitutional due process rights in connection with delinquent tax collection efforts. There are also allegations that amounts recovered from the class by GLS and / or Allegheny County are an unconstitutional taking of private property. The claims against the Company are solely based upon its ownership of GLS. The complaint requests that the Court order GLS to account for the amounts alleged to have been collected in violation of the putative class members' rights and create a constructive trust for the return of such amounts to members of the purported class. The same class previously filed substantially the same lawsuit in 2004 against GLS and Allegheny County, and GLS's Motion for Summary Judgment is pending in that action. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company and DCI Commercial, Inc. ("DCI"), a former affiliate of the Company and formerly known as Dynex Commercial, Inc., 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.

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 ("Allegheny County") 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 Allegheny County 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 were reasonable. Such attorneys' fees and related expenses were assessed by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to prevailing Allegheny County ordinance. On April 23, 2012, as a result of a petition to discontinue filed by the plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the remaining claims against GLS. The claims made by plaintiff that can be appealed include the legality of charging and recovering attorneys' fees and lien revival and filing costs from the class members. Plaintiff has not yet appealed the Court's ruling but the Company expects them to do so. Plaintiffs have not enumerated their damages in this matter.

The Company, GLS, and Allegheny County are named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in June 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The proposed class in this action consists of owners of real estate in Allegheny County whose property is or has been subject to a tax lien filed by Allegheny County that Allegheny County either retained or sold to GLS and who were billed by Allegheny County or GLS for attorneys' fees, interest, or prothonotary fees and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003, in connection with attempts to collect delinquent real estate taxes. The putative class allegations are that Allegheny County, GLS, and the Company violated the class's constitutional due process rights in connection with delinquent tax collection efforts. There are also allegations that amounts recovered from the class by GLS and / or Allegheny County are an unconstitutional taking of private property. The claims against the Company are solely based upon its ownership of GLS. The complaint requests that the Court order GLS to account for the amounts alleged to have been collected in violation of the putative class members' rights and create a constructive trust for the return of such amounts to members of the purported class. The same class previously filed substantially the same lawsuit in 2004 against GLS and Allegheny County, and GLS's Motion for Summary Judgment is pending in that action. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

The Company and DCI Commercial, Inc. ("DCI"), a former affiliate of the Company and formerly known as Dynex Commercial, Inc., 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.