Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Legal Proceedings Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 15 - 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. While the final outcome of any legal proceeding is inherently uncertain, based on the information currently available, advice of counsel and available insurance coverage, management believes that the amounts accrued with respect to legal matters as of June 30, 2014 are adequate. 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 future event occurring is slight. 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, management currently estimates the aggregate range from our outstanding litigation, including, without limitation, the matters described below, is from zero to $25 million in excess of the 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, results of operations 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 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 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. On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants permission to appeal the District Court’s certification of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall cause to be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the “Securities Class Action Settlement Payment”) in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other material and customary terms and conditions. On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment on June 4, 2014, and the hearing date for the final approval is scheduled for October 7, 2014. Synovus expects that, subject to execution of an appropriate release of the Defendants’ insurance carriers and other customary acknowledgments by the Defendants, the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment will be fully covered by insurance. There can be no assurance that the settlement-in-principle will be finally approved by the District Court. In the event the settlement-in-principle of the Securities Class Action is not approved by the District Court and finally 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. A preliminary hearing regarding class certification is scheduled for August 13, 2014. 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 ("the Griner Overdraft Litigation"). 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. On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for further proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration. On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari. On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-chartered banks in connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia’s usury laws. The trial court held a hearing for consideration of this issue on November 21, 2013, and a decision is pending. On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement (the “Griner Settlement”) by and among Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein as “Synovus”), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has agreed to (1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims and (2) pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each purported class member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will give Synovus a full and final general release of all claims alleged or that could be alleged in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. The final fairness hearing on the Griner Settlement was held on May 20, 2014, and the Griner Settlement was approved by the Court.

Note 15 - 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. While the final outcome of any legal proceeding is inherently uncertain, based on the information currently available, advice of counsel and available insurance coverage, management believes that the amounts accrued with respect to legal matters as of June 30, 2014 are adequate. 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 future event occurring is slight. 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, management currently estimates the aggregate range from our outstanding litigation, including, without limitation, the matters described below, is from zero to $25 million in excess of the 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, results of operations 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 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

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. On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants permission to appeal the District Court’s certification of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall cause to be paid $11.8 million to the Lead Plaintiffs (the “Securities Class Action Settlement Payment”) in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other material and customary terms and conditions. On March 17, 2014, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court for preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment. The District Court granted preliminary approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment on June 4, 2014, and the hearing date for the final approval is scheduled for October 7, 2014. Synovus expects that, subject to execution of an appropriate release of the Defendants’ insurance carriers and other customary acknowledgments by the Defendants, the Securities Class Action Settlement Payment will be fully covered by insurance. There can be no assurance that the settlement-in-principle will be finally approved by the District Court. In the event the settlement-in-principle of the Securities Class Action is not approved by the District Court and finally 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. A preliminary hearing regarding class certification is scheduled for August 13, 2014.

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 ("the Griner Overdraft Litigation"). 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. On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for further proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration. On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari. On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national banks, overdraft fees imposed by state-chartered banks in connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia’s usury laws. The trial court held a hearing for consideration of this issue on November 21, 2013, and a decision is pending.

On February 3, 2014, the Gwinnett County State Court (State of Georgia) issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement (the “Griner Settlement”) by and among Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank (collectively referred to herein as “Synovus”), and the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. Under the terms of the Griner Settlement, Synovus has agreed to (1) establish a fund to pay eligible class member claims and (2) pay an agreed-upon amount of fees to counsel for the plaintiffs in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. In exchange, each purported class member in the Griner Overdraft Litigation will give Synovus a full and final general release of all claims alleged or that could be alleged in the Griner Overdraft Litigation. The final fairness hearing on the Griner Settlement was held on May 20, 2014, and the Griner Settlement was approved by the Court.