Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies. Prior to 2016, the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. The Company has received indemnification and loan repurchase demands with respect to alleged violations of representations and warranties (“defects”) and with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and contractual commitments made in loan sale and securitization agreements. These demands have been received substantially beginning in 2006 and have continued into recent years. Prior to the Company ceasing the origination of loans in its mortgage lending business, it sold loans to securitization trusts and other third parties and agreed to repurchase loans with material defects and to otherwise indemnify parties to these transactions. Beginning in 1997 and ending in 2007, affiliates of the Company sold loans to securitization trusts and third parties with the potential of such obligations. The aggregate original principal balance of these loans was $43.1 billion at the time of sale or securitization. The remaining principal balance of these loans is not available as these loans are serviced by third parties and may have been refinanced, sold or liquidated. Claims to repurchase loans or to indemnify under securitization documents have not been acknowledged as valid by the Company. In some cases, claims were made against affiliates of the Company that have ceased operations and have no or limited assets. The Company has not repurchased any loans or made any such indemnification payments since 2010. Historically, repurchases of loans or indemnification of losses where a loan defect has been alleged have been insignificant and any future losses for alleged loan defects have not been deemed to be probable or reasonably estimable; therefore, the Company has recorded no reserves related to these claims. The Company does not use internal groupings for purposes of determining the status of these loans. The Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments related to repurchase demands because the Company does not have access to information relating to loans sold and securitized and the number or amount of claims deemed probable of assertion is not known nor is it reasonably estimated. Further, the validity of claims received remains questionable. Also, considering that the Company completed its last sale or securitization of loans during 2007, the Company believes that it will be difficult for a claimant to successfully validate any additional repurchase demands. Management does not expect that the potential impact of claims will be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Pending Litigation. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Except as set forth below, these proceedings are of an ordinary and routine nature. Any legal fees associated with these proceedings are expensed as incurred. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding, in the opinion of management, other than the active proceedings described in detail below, proceedings and actions against the Company should not, individually, or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, operations and liquidity. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of any potential loss as a result of pending litigation and due to the Company's belief that an adverse ruling is not probable, the Company has not accrued a loss contingency related to the following matters in its consolidated financial statements. However, a material outcome in one or more of the active proceedings described below could have a material impact on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for a description of the impact of the Company's Chapter 11 case on these proceedings. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (“NMFC”) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company (“affiliated defendants”) and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings pending a decision on the objector’s request for a stay. Assuming the settlement is approved and completed, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement is not approved, expects them to defend the case vigorously. On June 20, 2011, the National Credit Union Administration Board, as liquidating agent of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, filed an action against NMFC and numerous other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming that the defendants issued or underwrote residential mortgage-backed securities pursuant to allegedly false or misleading registration statements, prospectuses, and/or prospectus supplements. On August 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making essentially the same claims against NMFC. NMFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint which was denied on September 12, 2013. The defendants had claimed that the case should be dismissed based upon a statute of limitations and sought an appeal of the court's denial of this defense. An interlocutory appeal of this issue was allowed, and on August 27, 2013, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims as being time barred; the appellate court held that the Extender Statute, 12 U.S.C. §1787(b)(14) applied to plaintiff’s claims. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition of NMFC and its co-defendants for certiorari, vacated the ruling of the Tenth Circuit, and remanded the case back to that court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014). On August 19, 2014, the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision, and on October 2, 2014 the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied. On March 22, 2016, NMFC filed motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Those motions remain pending. Given that plaintiff did not file a timely proof of claim in NMFC’s bankruptcy case, the Company believes it is likely that the case will be dismissed. The Company and NMFC have meritorious defenses to the case and expects it to defend the case vigorously in the event it proceeds. On February 28, 2013 the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and purportedly on behalf of the Trustee of the NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1 (the “Trust”), a securitization trust in which the Company retains a residual interest, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against the Company and NMI. The notice provides that this is a breach of contract action with respect to certain, unspecified mortgage loans and defendants' failure to repurchase such loans under the applicable agreements. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, from the closing date of the transaction that created the Trust, were aware of the breach of the representations and warranties made and failed to give notice of and cure such breaches, and due to the failure of defendants to cure any breach, notice to defendants would have been futile. The summons with notice was not served until June 28, 2013. By letter dated June 24, 2013, the Trustee of the Trust forwarded a notice from Freddie Mac alleging breaches of representations and warranties with respect to 43 loans, as more fully set forth in included documentation. The 43 loans had an aggregate, original principal balance of about $6.5 million. On August 19, 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, filed a complaint identifying alleged breaches of representations and warranties with respect to seven loans that were included in the earlier list of 43 loans. Plaintiff also generally alleged a trust-wide breach of representations and warranties by defendants with respect to loans sold and transferred to the trust. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of repurchase obligations; compensatory, consequential, recessionary and equitable damages for breach of contract; specific performance and damages for anticipatory breach of contract; indemnification (indemnification against NMI only) and damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 9, 2013, the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. This motion to dismiss was withdrawn after plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2014, and on March 4, 2014 the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By a Decision/Order dated November 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed all claims except for plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of contract, to the extent that claim is based on the Company’s and NMI’s alleged failure to notify plaintiff of allegedly defective loans, and plaintiff’s claim for indemnification. The court denied the motion to dismiss these claims without prejudice to the Company’s and NMI’s right to file a new motion to dismiss in conformity with procedures to be established in coordinated proceedings before the court addressing similar claims against numerous defendants. Briefing of the indemnification issues is now underway. Given the stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend the case vigorously.

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies. Prior to 2016, the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. The Company has received indemnification and loan repurchase demands with respect to alleged violations of representations and warranties (“defects”) and with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and contractual commitments made in loan sale and securitization agreements. These demands have been received substantially beginning in 2006 and have continued into recent years. Prior to the Company ceasing the origination of loans in its mortgage lending business, it sold loans to securitization trusts and other third parties and agreed to repurchase loans with material defects and to otherwise indemnify parties to these transactions. Beginning in 1997 and ending in 2007, affiliates of the Company sold loans to securitization trusts and third parties with the potential of such obligations. The aggregate original principal balance of these loans was $43.1 billion at the time of sale or securitization. The remaining principal balance of these loans is not available as these loans are serviced by third parties and may have been refinanced, sold or liquidated. Claims to repurchase loans or to indemnify under securitization documents have not been acknowledged as valid by the Company. In some cases, claims were made against affiliates of the Company that have ceased operations and have no or limited assets. The Company has not repurchased any loans or made any such indemnification payments since 2010.

Historically, repurchases of loans or indemnification of losses where a loan defect has been alleged have been insignificant and any future losses for alleged loan defects have not been deemed to be probable or reasonably estimable; therefore, the Company has recorded no reserves related to these claims. The Company does not use internal groupings for purposes of determining the status of these loans. The Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments related to repurchase demands because the Company does not have access to information relating to loans sold and securitized and the number or amount of claims deemed probable of assertion is not known nor is it reasonably estimated. Further, the validity of claims received remains questionable. Also, considering that the Company completed its last sale or securitization of loans during 2007, the Company believes that it will be difficult for a claimant to successfully validate any additional repurchase demands. Management does not expect that the potential impact of claims will be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Pending Litigation. The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Except as set forth below, these proceedings are of an ordinary and routine nature. Any legal fees associated with these proceedings are expensed as incurred.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding, in the opinion of management, other than the active proceedings described in detail below, proceedings and actions against the Company should not, individually, or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, operations and liquidity. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of any potential loss as a result of pending litigation and due to the Company's belief that an adverse ruling is not probable, the Company has not accrued a loss contingency related to the following matters in its consolidated financial statements. However, a material outcome in one or more of the active proceedings described below could have a material impact on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for a description of the impact of the Company's Chapter 11 case on these proceedings.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (“NMFC”) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company (“affiliated defendants”) and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings pending a decision

on the objector’s request for a stay. Assuming the settlement is approved and completed, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement is not approved, expects them to defend the case vigorously.

On June 20, 2011, the National Credit Union Administration Board, as liquidating agent of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, filed an action against NMFC and numerous other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming that the defendants issued or underwrote residential mortgage-backed securities pursuant to allegedly false or misleading registration statements, prospectuses, and/or prospectus supplements. On August 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making essentially the same claims against NMFC. NMFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint which was denied on September 12, 2013. The defendants had claimed that the case should be dismissed based upon a statute of limitations and sought an appeal of the court's denial of this defense. An interlocutory appeal of this issue was allowed, and on August 27, 2013, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims as being time barred; the appellate court held that the Extender Statute, 12 U.S.C. §1787(b)(14) applied to plaintiff’s claims. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition of NMFC and its co-defendants for certiorari, vacated the ruling of the Tenth Circuit, and remanded the case back to that court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014). On August 19, 2014, the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision, and on October 2, 2014 the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied. On March 22, 2016, NMFC filed motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Those motions remain pending. Given that plaintiff did not file a timely proof of claim in NMFC’s bankruptcy case, the Company believes it is likely that the case will be dismissed. The Company and NMFC have meritorious defenses to the case and expects it to defend the case vigorously in the event it proceeds.

On February 28, 2013 the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and purportedly on behalf of the Trustee of the NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1 (the “Trust”), a securitization trust in which the Company retains a residual interest, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against the Company and NMI. The notice provides that this is a breach of contract action with respect to certain, unspecified mortgage loans and defendants' failure to repurchase such loans under the applicable agreements. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, from the closing date of the transaction that created the Trust, were aware of the breach of the representations and warranties made and failed to give notice of and cure such breaches, and due to the failure of defendants to cure any breach, notice to defendants would have been futile. The summons with notice was not served until June 28, 2013. By letter dated June 24, 2013, the Trustee of the Trust forwarded a notice from Freddie Mac alleging breaches of representations and warranties with respect to 43 loans, as more fully set forth in included documentation. The 43 loans had an aggregate, original principal balance of about $6.5 million. On August 19, 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, filed a complaint identifying alleged breaches of representations and warranties with respect to seven loans that were included in the earlier list of 43 loans. Plaintiff also generally alleged a trust-wide breach of representations and warranties by defendants with respect to loans sold and transferred to the trust. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of repurchase obligations; compensatory, consequential, recessionary and equitable damages for breach of contract; specific performance and damages for anticipatory breach of contract; indemnification (indemnification against NMI only) and damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 9, 2013, the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. This motion to dismiss was withdrawn after plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2014, and on March 4, 2014 the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By a Decision/Order dated November 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed all claims except for plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of contract, to the extent that claim is based on the Company’s and NMI’s alleged failure to notify plaintiff of allegedly defective loans, and plaintiff’s claim for indemnification. The court denied the motion to dismiss these claims without prejudice to the Company’s and NMI’s right to file a new motion to dismiss in conformity with procedures to be established in coordinated proceedings before the court addressing similar claims against numerous defendants. Briefing of the indemnification issues is now underway. Given the stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the case and expects to defend the case vigorously.