Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Text Block]	Legal Proceedings Colonial Grand at Traditions Litigation As previously disclosed, in early 2007, CRLP and SM Traditions Associates, LLC ("SM") entered into a joint venture to develop the Colonial Grand at Traditions located in Gulf Shores, Alabama. CRLP and SM formed TA-Colonial Traditions LLC (the "Joint Venture"), in which CRLP owns a 35% interest and SM owns a 65% interest. In April 2007, the Joint Venture entered into a construction loan agreement for $34.1 million with Regions Bank ("Regions"). The Trust and SM each guaranteed up to $3.5 million of the principal, for an aggregate of up to $7.0 million, of the construction loan obtained by the Joint Venture. The construction loan, which had a balance of $35.5 million as of June 17, 2011 (including accrued interest), matured by its terms on April 15, 2010. In October 2010, Regions, as the lender, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama seeking appointment of a receiver for the Colonial Grand at Traditions, demanding payment of the outstanding balance under the loan from the Joint Venture and demanding payment on the guarantees from each of the guarantors, including the Trust, together with outstanding interest and other charges on the loan. On or about December 13, 2010, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. ("MTGLQ") purchased the construction loan from Regions. MTGLQ subsequently transferred all of its interest in the construction loan to MLQ-ELD, L.L.C. ("MLQ"). MLQ initiated foreclosure proceedings with respect to the property in January 2011. Pursuant to an order of the Court entered on May 17, 2011, MLQ was also substituted for Regions with respect to the claims of Regions against the Joint Venture and the guarantors. On June 17, 2011, the Company purchased the outstanding note and related loan documents from MLQ for $21.1 million. The Company was substituted as the plaintiff in the action and the claims originally asserted by Regions against the Trust on the guarantee were dismissed. On August 1, 2011, CRLP acquired the Joint Venture's property through foreclosure. Separately, in December 2010, SM and the Joint Venture (together, the "JV Parties") filed cross-claims in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama against CRLP, the Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc. and Colonial Construction Services, LLC (collectively, the “Colonial Parties”), in connection with the development and management of the Colonial Grand at Traditions by the Colonial Parties. The JV Parties assert several claims relating to the Colonial Parties' oversight and involvement in the development and construction of the property, including breach of management and development agreements, material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and breach of fiduciary duty. The JV Parties also assert that the Colonial Parties conspired with Regions in connection with the activities alleged; however, in July 2012, the Court dismissed the conspiracy claims. The JV Parties have made a demand for an accounting of the costs of development and construction and claim damages of at least $13.0 million. While the Company has included in its accrual for loss contingencies an estimate of probable loss, the Company currently estimates that the reasonably possible loss with respect to this matter ranges from $0 to $13.0 million. The Colonial Parties believe the JV Parties' allegations lack merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. However, the Colonial Parties cannot predict the outcome of any pending litigation and may be subject to consequences that could include damages, fines, penalties and other costs. The Colonial Parties' management believes that any liability that could be imposed on the various Colonial Parties in connection with the disposition of any pending lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Colonial Parties' business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. James Island Litigation As previously disclosed, the Trust and CRLP, along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in lawsuits arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Mira Vista at James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Mira Vista was acquired by Colonial entities after the units were constructed and operated as a multifamily rental project. The condominium conversion occurred in 2006 and all 230 units were sold. The lawsuits, one filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and one filed by one of the purchasers (purportedly on behalf of all purchasers), were filed in the South Carolina state court, Charleston County, in March 2010, against various parties involved in the development, construction and conversion of the Mira Vista at James Island property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, lenders, the developer, inspectors, product manufacturers and distributors. The plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices. The lawsuits are currently in discovery. The Company is continuing to investigate the matter and evaluate its options and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. No assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved favorably to the Company. The Company has included in its loss contingency an estimate of probable loss in connection with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss, in connection with this matter. UCO Litigation The Company is involved in a contract dispute with a general contractor and three of its officers/managers in connection with construction cost overruns with respect to five for-sale projects which were being developed in a joint venture, CPSI-UCO, LLC. The President of the contractor is affiliated with the Company's joint venture partner. In connection with the dispute, in January 2008, the contractor and three managers filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County against the Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc., CPSI-UCO, LLC, CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC, CPSI-UCO Spanish Oaks, LLC; CPSI-UCO Cypress Village I, LLC; CPSI-UCO Cypress Village II, and CPSI Cypress Village III, LLC alleging, among other things, breach of contract, enforcement of a lien against real property, misrepresentation, conversion, declaratory judgment and an accounting of costs, seeking $10.3 million in damages, plus consequential and punitive damages. In December 2011, following a jury trial, the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages of approximately $4.8 million for their claims against all defendants and the defendants were awarded compensatory damages of approximately $0.5 million for their claims against the President of the contractor. The jury also found that the contractor breached its contract. In January 2012, the plaintiffs filed post-trial motions, including a request for an amendment to the judgment to add approximately $4.8 million for attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial and opposed the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs. In the event the post-trial efforts are not successful, the Company intends to appeal. No assurance can be given that these matters will be resolved in the Company's favor. Following the judgment, and after considering various factors, including existing law and precedent, the opinions and views of legal counsel and other advisers, the Company's experience with other litigation matters, the facts available to the Company at the time of assessment, and the actions the Company has taken and is taking in response to the proceeding, the Company determined that a loss associated with this litigation was probable and the amount was reasonably estimable and, accordingly, recorded a $3.3 million charge in the fourth quarter 2011 to its loss contingency accrual even though the jury verdict did not allocate the verdict among the defendants. No assurance can be given that additional charges will not be taken in future periods. Grander Litigation The Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc., Marion Uter, UCO Partners, LLC, UCO Development, LLC, UCO Construction, LLC, UCO, LLC, CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC, and CPSI-UCO, LLC were sued by five individual purchasers of condominium units in The Grander alleging breach of contract, fraud, construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices. In April 2011, an arbitrator awarded rescission rights in favor of the purchasers against CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC. Post-arbitration appeals are being pursued by the parties, but no prediction of the likelihood or the amount of any resulting loss or recovery can be made at this time, and no assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved favorably. The Company has included in its loss contingency an estimate of probable loss in connection with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss, in connection with this matter. Loss Contingencies The outcomes of the claims, disputes and legal proceedings described or referenced above are subject to significant uncertainty. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these accruals quarterly and makes revisions based on changes in facts and circumstances. 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 loss, or range of loss, then that is disclosed. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable, often involve a series of complex judgments about future events. Among the factors that the Company considers in this assessment, including with respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 16, are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if reasonably estimable), the progress of the matter, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, the Company's experience in similar matters, the facts available to the Company at the time of assessment, and how the Company intends to respond, or has responded, to the proceeding or claim. The Company's assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. For matters where the Company is not currently able to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, the factors that have contributed to this determination include the following: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large or uncertain number of actual or potential cases or parties, and/or (iv) discussions with the parties in matters that are expected ultimately to be resolved through negotiation and settlement have not reached the point where the Company believes a reasonable estimate of loss, or range of loss, can be made. In such instances, the Company believes that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss or business impact, if any. As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company's accrual for loss contingencies was $8.9 million and $8.8 million in the aggregate, respectively.

Legal Proceedings

Colonial Grand at Traditions Litigation

As previously disclosed, in early 2007, CRLP and SM Traditions Associates, LLC ("SM") entered into a joint venture to develop the Colonial Grand at Traditions located in Gulf Shores, Alabama. CRLP and SM formed TA-Colonial Traditions LLC (the "Joint Venture"), in which CRLP owns a 35% interest and SM owns a 65% interest. In April 2007, the Joint Venture entered into a construction loan agreement for $34.1 million with Regions Bank ("Regions"). The Trust and SM each guaranteed up to $3.5 million of the principal, for an aggregate of up to $7.0 million, of the construction loan obtained by the Joint Venture. The construction loan, which had a balance of $35.5 million as of June 17, 2011 (including accrued interest), matured by its terms on April 15, 2010. In October 2010, Regions, as the lender, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama seeking appointment of a receiver for the Colonial Grand at Traditions, demanding payment of the outstanding balance under the loan from the Joint Venture and demanding payment on the guarantees from each of the guarantors, including the Trust, together with outstanding interest and other charges on the loan.

On or about December 13, 2010, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. ("MTGLQ") purchased the construction loan from Regions. MTGLQ subsequently transferred all of its interest in the construction loan to MLQ-ELD, L.L.C. ("MLQ"). MLQ initiated foreclosure proceedings with respect to the property in January 2011. Pursuant to an order of the Court entered on May 17, 2011, MLQ was also substituted for Regions with respect to the claims of Regions against the Joint Venture and the guarantors. On June 17, 2011, the Company purchased the outstanding note and related loan documents from MLQ for $21.1 million. The Company was substituted as the plaintiff in the action and the claims originally asserted by Regions against the Trust on the guarantee were dismissed. On August 1, 2011, CRLP acquired the Joint Venture's property through foreclosure.

Separately, in December 2010, SM and the Joint Venture (together, the "JV Parties") filed cross-claims in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama against CRLP, the Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc. and Colonial Construction Services, LLC (collectively, the “Colonial Parties”), in connection with the development and management of the Colonial Grand at Traditions by the Colonial Parties. The JV Parties assert several claims relating to the Colonial Parties' oversight and involvement in the development and construction of the property, including breach of management and development agreements, material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and breach of fiduciary duty. The JV Parties also assert that the Colonial Parties conspired with Regions in connection with the activities alleged; however, in July 2012, the Court dismissed the conspiracy claims. The JV Parties have made a demand for an accounting of the costs of development and construction and claim damages of at least $13.0 million. While the Company has included in its accrual for loss contingencies an estimate of probable loss, the Company currently estimates that the reasonably possible loss with respect to this matter ranges from $0 to $13.0 million.

The Colonial Parties believe the JV Parties' allegations lack merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. However, the Colonial Parties cannot predict the outcome of any pending litigation and may be subject to consequences that could include damages, fines, penalties and other costs. The Colonial Parties' management believes that any liability that could be imposed on the various Colonial Parties in connection with the disposition of any pending lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on the Colonial Parties' business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

James Island Litigation

As previously disclosed, the Trust and CRLP, along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in lawsuits arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Mira Vista at James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Mira Vista was acquired by Colonial entities after the units were constructed and operated as a multifamily rental project. The condominium conversion occurred in 2006 and all 230 units were sold. The lawsuits, one filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and one filed by one of the purchasers (purportedly on behalf of all purchasers), were filed in the South Carolina state court, Charleston County, in March 2010, against various parties involved in the development, construction and conversion of the Mira Vista at James Island property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, lenders, the developer, inspectors, product manufacturers and distributors. The plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices. The lawsuits are currently in discovery. The Company is continuing to investigate the matter and evaluate its options and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. No assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved favorably to the Company. The Company has included in its loss contingency an estimate of probable loss in connection with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss, in connection with this matter.

UCO Litigation

The Company is involved in a contract dispute with a general contractor and three of its officers/managers in connection with construction cost overruns with respect to five for-sale projects which were being developed in a joint venture, CPSI-UCO, LLC. The President of the contractor is affiliated with the Company's joint venture partner.

In connection with the dispute, in January 2008, the contractor and three managers filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County against the Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc., CPSI-UCO, LLC, CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC, CPSI-UCO Spanish Oaks, LLC; CPSI-UCO Cypress Village I, LLC; CPSI-UCO Cypress Village II, and CPSI Cypress Village III, LLC alleging, among other things, breach of contract, enforcement of a lien against real property, misrepresentation, conversion, declaratory judgment and an accounting of costs, seeking $10.3 million in damages, plus consequential and punitive damages. In December 2011, following a jury trial, the plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages of approximately $4.8 million for their claims against all defendants and the defendants were awarded compensatory damages of approximately $0.5 million for their claims against the President of the contractor. The jury also found that the contractor breached its contract. In January 2012, the plaintiffs filed post-trial motions, including a request for an amendment to the judgment to add approximately $4.8 million for attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The defendants filed a motion for a new trial and opposed the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs. In the event the post-trial efforts are not successful, the Company intends to appeal. No assurance can be given that these matters will be resolved in the Company's favor.

Following the judgment, and after considering various factors, including existing law and precedent, the opinions and views of legal counsel and other advisers, the Company's experience with other litigation matters, the facts available to the Company at the time of assessment, and the actions the Company has taken and is taking in response to the proceeding, the Company determined that a loss associated with this litigation was probable and the amount was reasonably estimable and, accordingly, recorded a $3.3 million charge in the fourth quarter 2011 to its loss contingency accrual even though the jury verdict did not allocate the verdict among the defendants. No assurance can be given that additional charges will not be taken in future periods.

Grander Litigation

The Trust, Colonial Properties Services, Inc., Marion Uter, UCO Partners, LLC, UCO Development, LLC, UCO Construction, LLC, UCO, LLC, CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC, and CPSI-UCO, LLC were sued by five individual purchasers of condominium units in The Grander alleging breach of contract, fraud, construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices. In April 2011, an arbitrator awarded rescission rights in favor of the purchasers against CPSI-UCO Grander, LLC. Post-arbitration appeals are being pursued by the parties, but no prediction of the likelihood or the amount of any resulting loss or recovery can be made at this time, and no assurance can be given that the matter will be resolved favorably. The Company has included in its loss contingency an estimate of probable loss in connection with this matter, but currently cannot reasonably estimate any further possible loss, or any range of reasonably possible loss, in connection with this matter.

Loss Contingencies

The outcomes of the claims, disputes and legal proceedings described or referenced above are subject to significant uncertainty. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company reviews these accruals quarterly and makes revisions based on changes in facts and circumstances. 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 loss, or range of loss, then that is disclosed.

The assessment of whether a loss is probable or a reasonable possibility, and whether the loss or range of loss is reasonably estimable, often involve a series of complex judgments about future events. Among the factors that the Company considers in this assessment, including with respect to the matters disclosed in this Note 16, are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if reasonably estimable), the progress of the matter, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, the Company's experience in similar matters, the facts available to the Company at the time of assessment, and how the Company intends to respond, or has responded, to the proceeding or claim. The Company's assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. For matters where the Company is not currently able to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, the factors that have contributed to this determination include the following: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, (iii) the matters involve novel or unsettled legal theories or a large or uncertain number of actual or potential cases or parties, and/or (iv) discussions with the parties in matters that are expected ultimately to be resolved through negotiation and settlement have not reached the point where the Company believes a reasonable estimate of loss, or range of loss, can be made. In such instances, the Company believes that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss or business impact, if any.

As of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company's accrual for loss contingencies was $8.9 million and $8.8 million in the aggregate, respectively.