Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company records accruals for certain outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations and claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not accrue the loss. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of the accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company discloses a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such reasonable estimate can be made. If the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible material loss, or range of loss, then that fact is disclosed. 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 lien receivables for properties located in the county. The plaintiffs in this matter 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 lien receivables. The Court granted class action status and defined 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). Amendments to the statute that governs the collection of delinquent tax liens in Pennsylvania, related case law, and GLS' filing of one or more successful motions for summary judgment resulted in the dismissal of 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 lien costs were assessed by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to the 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. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of Appeals. The claims made by plaintiffs on appeal include only the legality of charging and recovering attorneys' fees and tax lien revival and assignment costs from the class members. 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 lawsuit relates to the activities of GLS in Allegheny County related to the purchase and collection of delinquent property tax lien receivables discussed above. The purported 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, and certain other fees and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003. 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 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 (ACORN v. County of Allegheny and GLS Capital, Inc.), 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 in this matter. 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 state court in Dallas, Texas. The matter was initially filed 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. Following a trial court decision in favor of both the Company and DCI, Plaintiffs appealed, 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. Plaintiffs also sought 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 sought reversal and rendition of a judgment in their favor for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,100. Alternatively, Plaintiffs sought a new trial. On February 13, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas (the “Fifth Circuit”) ruled on Plaintiff's appeal, affirming the previous decision of no liability with respect to the Company, and reversing the previous decision of no liability with respect to DCI relating to the $160,000 “master” loan commitment. The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest due to Plaintiffs and reinstated the $25,600 damage award against DCI. The Fifth Circuit's decision appears to permit Plaintiffs to recover the costs of their appeal from both the Company and DCI. The Company and DCI have filed a motion for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit on the issue of the costs. As part of the motion for rehearing, DCI also challenged the $25,600 damage award and the decision regarding attorneys' fees. Management believes the Company will not be obligated for any amounts that may ultimately be awarded against DCI.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company records accruals for certain outstanding legal proceedings, investigations or claims when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings, investigations and claims that could affect the amount of any accrual, as well as any developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. When a loss contingency is not both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company does not accrue the loss. However, if the loss (or an additional loss in excess of the accrual) is at least a reasonable possibility and material, then the Company discloses a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if such reasonable estimate can be made. If the Company cannot make a reasonable estimate of the possible material loss, or range of loss, then that fact is disclosed.

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 lien receivables for properties located in the county. The plaintiffs in this matter 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 lien receivables. The Court granted class action status and defined 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). Amendments to the statute that governs the collection of delinquent tax liens in Pennsylvania, related case law, and GLS' filing of one or more successful motions for summary judgment resulted in the dismissal of 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 lien costs were assessed by GLS in its collection efforts pursuant to the 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. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of Appeals. The claims made by plaintiffs on appeal include only the legality of charging and recovering attorneys' fees and tax lien revival and assignment costs from the class members. 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 lawsuit relates to the activities of GLS in Allegheny County related to the purchase and collection of delinquent property tax lien receivables discussed above. The purported 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, and certain other fees and who sustained economic damages on and after August 14, 2003. 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 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 (ACORN v. County of Allegheny and GLS Capital, Inc.), 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 in this matter.

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 state court in Dallas, Texas. The matter was initially filed 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. Following a trial court decision in favor of both the Company and DCI, Plaintiffs appealed, 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. Plaintiffs also sought 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 sought reversal and rendition of a judgment in their favor for attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,100. Alternatively, Plaintiffs sought a new trial. On February 13, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas (the “Fifth Circuit”) ruled on Plaintiff's appeal, affirming the previous decision of no liability with respect to the Company, and reversing the previous decision of no liability with respect to DCI relating to the $160,000 “master” loan commitment. The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest due to Plaintiffs and reinstated the $25,600 damage award against DCI. The Fifth Circuit's decision appears to permit Plaintiffs to recover the costs of their appeal from both the Company and DCI. The Company and DCI have filed a motion for rehearing with the Fifth Circuit on the issue of the costs. As part of the motion for rehearing, DCI also challenged the $25,600 damage award and the decision regarding attorneys' fees. Management believes the Company will not be obligated for any amounts that may ultimately be awarded against DCI.