Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Legal Proceedings Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings Synovus carefully examines and considers each legal matter, and, in those situations where Synovus determines that a particular legal matter presents loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable, Synovus establishes an appropriate accrual. An event is considered to be “probable” if “the future event is likely to occur.” The actual amounts accrued by Synovus in respect of legal matters as of December 31, 2012 are not material to Synovus' consolidated financial statements. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued. In addition, where Synovus determines that there is a reasonable possibility of a loss in respect of legal matters, including those legal matters described below, Synovus considers whether it is able to estimate the total reasonably possible loss or range of loss. An event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely.” An event is “remote” if “the chance of the event or future event occurring is more than slight but less than reasonably possible." In many situations, Synovus may be unable to estimate reasonably possible losses due to the preliminary nature of the legal matters, as well as a variety of other factors and uncertainties. For those legal matters where Synovus is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, Synovus' management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is from zero to $75 million in excess of amounts accrued, if any, related to those matters. This estimated aggregate range is based upon information currently available to Synovus, and the actual losses could prove to be higher. As there are further developments in these legal matters, Synovus will reassess these matters, and the estimated range of reasonably possible losses may change as a result of this assessment. Based on Synovus' current knowledge and advice of counsel, management presently does not believe that the liabilities arising from these legal matters will have a material adverse effect on Synovus' consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these legal matters could have a material adverse effect on Synovus' results of operations and financial condition for any particular period. Synovus intends to vigorously pursue all available defenses to these legal matters, but will also consider other alternatives, including settlement, in situations where there is an opportunity to resolve such legal matters on terms that Synovus considers to be favorable, including in light of the continued expense and distraction of defending such legal matters. Synovus also maintains insurance coverage, which may (or may not) be available to cover legal fees, or potential losses that might be incurred in connection with the legal matters described below. The above-noted estimated range of reasonably possible losses does not take into consideration insurance coverage which may or may not be available for the respective legal matters. Securities Class Action and Related Litigation On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the “Securities Class Action”); and on June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-3069) (the “Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class Action described above. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On December 1, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases involve “common issues of law and fact.” Plaintiff in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit served a verified amended shareholder derivative complaint on June 5, 2012. On July 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended shareholder derivative complaint. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (the “State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit described above. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On June 17, 2010, the Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On October 4, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit reached an agreement in principal to settle, subject to the Court's approval, the outstanding derivative claims purportedly brought on behalf of Synovus in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On November 14, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit executed a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing the principal terms of their proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). On January 8, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was finally approved at a hearing held on February 26, 2013. There are significant uncertainties involved in any potential class action and derivative litigation. Synovus may seek to mediate the Securities Class Action in order to determine whether a reasonable settlement can be reached. In the event the Securities Class Action is not settled, Synovus and the individually named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action. Overdraft Litigation Posting Order Litigation On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The case is currently in discovery. On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On February 14, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. On March 22, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 19, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring the case to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. On April 20, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed objections to the Conditional Transfer Order. On May 4 and 5, 2012 Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. On August 3, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case transferred to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. On September 5, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Childs case filed an amended complaint that added Richard Green, the named plaintiff from the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case, as a named plaintiff in the Childs case. As a result, the parties advised the court that the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case should be dismissed without prejudice. On November 8, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Green case. Assertion of Overdraft Fees as Interest Litigation Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer accounts. Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012 Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. The case remains pending on appeal.

Legal Proceedings

Synovus carefully examines and considers each legal matter, and, in those situations where Synovus determines that a particular legal matter presents loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable, Synovus establishes an appropriate accrual. An event is considered to be “probable” if “the future event is likely to occur.” The actual amounts accrued by Synovus in respect of legal matters as of December 31, 2012 are not material to Synovus' consolidated financial statements. The actual costs of resolving legal claims may be higher or lower than the amounts accrued.

In addition, where Synovus determines that there is a reasonable possibility of a loss in respect of legal matters, including those legal matters described below, Synovus considers whether it is able to estimate the total reasonably possible loss or range of loss. An event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely.” An event is “remote” if “the chance of the event or future event occurring is more than slight but less than reasonably possible." In many situations, Synovus may be unable to estimate reasonably possible losses due to the preliminary nature of the legal matters, as well as a variety of other factors and uncertainties. For those legal matters where Synovus is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, Synovus' management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is from zero to $75 million in excess of amounts accrued, if any, related to those matters. This estimated aggregate range is based upon information currently available to Synovus, and the actual losses could prove to be higher. As there are further developments in these legal matters, Synovus will reassess these matters, and the estimated range of reasonably possible losses may change as a result of this assessment. Based on Synovus' current knowledge and advice of counsel, management presently does not believe that the liabilities arising from these legal matters will have a material adverse effect on Synovus' consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these legal matters could have a material adverse effect on Synovus' results of operations and financial condition for any particular period.

Synovus intends to vigorously pursue all available defenses to these legal matters, but will also consider other alternatives, including settlement, in situations where there is an opportunity to resolve such legal matters on terms that Synovus considers to be favorable, including in light of the continued expense and distraction of defending such legal matters. Synovus also maintains insurance coverage, which may (or may not) be available to cover legal fees, or potential losses that might be incurred in connection with the legal matters described below. The above-noted estimated range of reasonably possible losses does not take into consideration insurance coverage which may or may not be available for the respective legal matters.

Securities Class Action and Related Litigation

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the “Securities Class Action”); and on June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012. Discovery in this case is ongoing.

On November 4, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-3069) (the “Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Securities Class Action described above. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On December 1, 2009, at the request of the parties, the Court consolidated the Securities Class Action and Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit for discovery purposes, captioned In re Synovus Financial Corp., 09-CV-1811-JOF, holding that the two cases involve “common issues of law and fact.” Plaintiff in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit served a verified amended shareholder derivative complaint on June 5, 2012. On July 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended shareholder derivative complaint. Discovery in this case is ongoing.

On December 21, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Synovus in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (the “State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit”), against certain current and/or former directors and executive officers of Synovus. The State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit asserts that the individual defendants violated their fiduciary duties based upon substantially the same facts as alleged in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit described above. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On June 17, 2010, the Superior Court entered an Order staying the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit pending resolution of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit.

On October 4, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit reached an agreement in principal to settle, subject to the Court's approval, the outstanding derivative claims purportedly brought on behalf of Synovus in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit and the State Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit. On November 14, 2012, the parties to the Federal Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit executed a Stipulation of Settlement memorializing the principal terms of their proposed settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). On January 8, 2013, the Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was finally approved at a hearing held on February 26, 2013.

There are significant uncertainties involved in any potential class action and derivative litigation. Synovus may seek to mediate the Securities Class Action in order to determine whether a reasonable settlement can be reached. In the event the Securities Class Action is not settled, Synovus and the individually named defendants collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the Securities Class Action.

Overdraft Litigation

Posting Order Litigation

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The case is currently in discovery.

On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On February 14, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to add a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. On March 22, 2012, Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 19, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring the case to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. On April 20, 2012, Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed objections to the Conditional Transfer Order. On May 4 and 5, 2012 Synovus Bank and Plaintiffs separately filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. On August 3, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case transferred to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.

On September 5, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Childs case filed an amended complaint that added Richard Green, the named plaintiff from the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case, as a named plaintiff in the Childs case. As a result, the parties advised the court that the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case should be dismissed without prejudice. On November 8, 2012, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Green case.

Assertion of Overdraft Fees as Interest Litigation

Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus Bank, et. al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer accounts. Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012 Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. The case remains pending on appeal.