Legal Proceedings (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Legal Proceedings
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Regatta Litigation The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in lawsuits arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Regatta at James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Regatta at James Island property was developed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries and constructed by Colonial Construction Services, LLC. The condominiums were constructed in 2006 and all 212 units were sold. The lawsuits, one filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and one filed by three of the unit owners (purportedly on behalf of all unit owners), were filed in South Carolina state court (Charleston County) in August 2012, against various parties involved in the development and construction of the Regatta at James Island property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting primarily from alleged construction deficiencies, but the amount plaintiffs seek to recover has not been disclosed. 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. Plantation Point Litigation The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in a lawsuit arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Plantation Point in Bluffton, South Carolina. Plantation Point was previously owned and operated by Colonial LP as a multi-family rental project by the name of the Ashley Plantation apartments. Colonial LP sold the property in 2005 to a third party, which then converted the property to condominiums and sold all 414 units. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and a class of unit owners, was filed in South Carolina state court (Beaufort County) in September 2011, against various parties involved in the development, construction and conversion of the Plantation Point property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs are seeking $24.7 million in damages resulting from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices attributed to the third-party seller. The lawsuit is 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. Williams Litigation On June 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama captioned Williams v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al., No. 01-CV-2013-902416.00 (the “Williams Litigation”), seeking, among other things, to enjoin the previously announced combination of MAA and Colonial in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 3, 2013, by and among MAA, the Operating Partnership, Martha Merger Sub, LP, Colonial and Colonial LP. The complaint names as defendants Colonial, the ten members of Colonial’s board of trustees, Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP Merger Sub. The original complaint contained two counts: The first alleges that Colonial’s trustees breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty in agreeing to the proposed merger because, among other things, they engaged in an unfair process, failed to maximize the Colonial shareholders’ consideration, and agreed to preclusive deal protection devices. The second count, against Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP Merger Sub, alleges that those parties “aided and abetted” the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Colonial’s trustees. In addition to the injunction of the merger, the complaint seeks, among other things, to recover Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, but it does not make a claim for monetary damages. On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that re-asserted Plaintiff’s earlier claims and added a new claim that the Colonial trustees breached their duty of candor by not providing Colonial shareholders full and complete disclosures regarding the merger. On August 14, 2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation reached an agreement in principle to settle the Williams Litigation, in which (a) defendants agreed to make certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the merger, and (b) the parties agreed that they would use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the court a stipulation of settlement which would, among other things, (i) provide for the conditional certification of a non-opt out settlement class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) consisting generally of all record and beneficial holders of the common stock of Colonial from June 3, 2013 through and including the date of the closing of the parent merger (the “Settlement Class”) (ii) release all claims that members of the Settlement Class may have that were alleged in the Williams Litigation or otherwise arising out of or relating in any manner to the merger and (iii) dismiss the Williams Litigation with prejudice. The proposed settlement, including the payment by Colonial (or its successors) of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, is subject to, among other things, confirmatory discovery, agreement to a stipulation of settlement, and final court approval following notice to the Settlement Class. Based on the terms of the agreement in principle reached in the Williams Litigation, the Company will not pay any monetary damages to the Settlement Class and the only monetary obligation will be the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, to the extent approved by the Court, up to an immaterial amount agreed to by the parties. On December 3, 2013, following the confirmatory discovery contemplated in the agreement in principle reached on August 14, 2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation executed a Stipulation of Settlement. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”), which attached as an exhibit the executed Stipulation of Settlement. On December 13, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval and preliminarily approved the Settlement and issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on Settlement (“Order”). In the Order, the Court set the final Settlement approval hearing for March 6, 2014 and also directed that notice of the Settlement and preliminary approval be sent to all Settlement Class members within ten business days. Such notice was sent out to Settlement Class members as set forth in the Order. 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, 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 December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company's accrual for loss contingencies was $11.9 million and $0.0 million in the aggregate, respectively.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Regatta Litigation

The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in lawsuits arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Regatta at James Island in Charleston, South Carolina. Regatta at James Island property was developed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries and constructed by Colonial Construction Services, LLC. The condominiums were constructed in 2006 and all 212 units were sold. The lawsuits, one filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and one filed by three of the unit owners (purportedly on behalf of all unit owners), were filed in South Carolina state court (Charleston County) in August 2012, against various parties involved in the development and construction of the Regatta at James Island property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting primarily from alleged construction deficiencies, but the amount plaintiffs seek to recover has not been disclosed. 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.

Plantation Point Litigation

The Company (by virtue of its merger with Colonial) and Colonial LP along with multiple other parties, are named defendants in a lawsuit arising out of alleged construction deficiencies with respect to condominium units at Plantation Point in Bluffton, South Carolina. Plantation Point was previously owned and operated by Colonial LP as a multi-family rental project by the name of the Ashley Plantation apartments. Colonial LP sold the property in 2005 to a third party, which then converted the property to condominiums and sold all 414 units. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the condominium homeowners association and a class of unit owners, was filed in South Carolina state court (Beaufort County) in September 2011, against various parties involved in the development, construction and conversion of the Plantation Point property, including the contractors, subcontractors, architect, developer, and product manufacturers. The plaintiffs are seeking $24.7 million in damages resulting from, among other things, alleged construction deficiencies and misleading sales practices attributed to the third-party seller. The lawsuit is 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.

Williams Litigation

On June 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama captioned Williams v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al., No. 01-CV-2013-902416.00 (the “Williams Litigation”), seeking, among other things, to enjoin the previously announced combination of MAA and Colonial in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 3, 2013, by and among MAA, the Operating Partnership, Martha Merger Sub, LP, Colonial and Colonial LP. The complaint names as defendants Colonial, the ten members of Colonial’s board of trustees, Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP Merger Sub. The original complaint contained two counts: The first alleges that Colonial’s trustees breached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty in agreeing to the proposed merger because, among other things, they engaged in an unfair process, failed to maximize the Colonial shareholders’ consideration, and agreed to preclusive deal protection devices. The second count, against Colonial LP, MAA, the Operating Partnership and OP Merger Sub, alleges that those parties “aided and abetted” the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Colonial’s trustees. In addition to the injunction of the merger, the complaint seeks, among other things, to recover Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, but it does not make a claim for monetary damages. On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that re-asserted Plaintiff’s earlier claims and added a new claim that the Colonial trustees breached their duty of candor by not providing Colonial shareholders full and complete disclosures regarding the merger. On August 14, 2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation reached an agreement in principle to settle the Williams Litigation, in which (a) defendants agreed to make certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the merger, and (b) the parties agreed that they would use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the court a stipulation of settlement which would, among other things, (i) provide for the conditional certification of a non-opt out settlement class pursuant to Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) consisting generally of all record and beneficial holders of the common stock of Colonial from June 3, 2013 through and including the date of the closing of the parent merger (the “Settlement Class”) (ii) release all claims that members of the Settlement Class may have that were alleged in the Williams Litigation or otherwise arising out of or relating in any manner to the merger and (iii) dismiss the Williams Litigation with prejudice. The proposed settlement, including the payment by Colonial (or its successors) of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court, is subject to, among other things, confirmatory discovery, agreement to a stipulation of settlement, and final court approval following notice to the Settlement Class. Based on the terms of the agreement in principle reached in the Williams Litigation, the Company will not pay any monetary damages to the Settlement Class and the only monetary obligation will be the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, to the extent approved by the Court, up to an immaterial amount agreed to by the parties.

On December 3, 2013, following the confirmatory discovery contemplated in the agreement in principle reached on August 14, 2013, the parties to the Williams Litigation executed a Stipulation of Settlement. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”), which attached as an exhibit the executed Stipulation of Settlement. On December 13, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval and preliminarily approved the Settlement and issued an Order for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing on Settlement (“Order”). In the Order, the Court set the final Settlement approval hearing for March 6, 2014 and also directed that notice of the Settlement and preliminary approval be sent to all Settlement Class members within ten business days. Such notice was sent out to Settlement Class members as set forth in the Order.

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, 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 December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company's accrual for loss contingencies was $11.9 million and $0.0 million in the aggregate, respectively.