Note 7	6 Months Ended
Apr. 30, 2013
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	7. We are involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, and we are subject to extensive and complex regulations that affect the development and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These regulations often provide broad discretion to the administering governmental authorities. This can delay or increase the cost of development or homebuilding. We also are subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations concerning protection of health and the environment. The particular environmental laws that apply to any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions and the present and former uses of the site. These environmental laws may result in delays, may cause us to incur substantial compliance, remediation and/or other costs, and can prohibit or severely restrict development and homebuilding activity. We received in October 2012 a notice from Region III of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concerning stipulated penalties, totaling approximately $120,000, based on the extent to which we reportedly did not meet certain compliance performance specified in the previously reported consent decree entered into in August 2010; we have since paid the stipulated penalties as assessed. Until terminated by court order, which can occur no sooner than three years from the date of its entry, the consent decree remains in effect and could give rise to additional assessments of stipulated penalties. In October 2012, we also received notices from Region III of EPA concerning alleged violations of stormwater discharge permits, issued in 2010 pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, at two projects in Maryland; we negotiated with the EPA two orders, which the EPA issued in February 2013, to resolve the violations. One requires us to pay a penalty of $130,000, while the other obligates us to take certain measures to comply with those permits and detail the specific compliance measures we take, among other things; our obligations under the orders will not materially affect us. In March 2013, we received a letter from the EPA requesting information about our involvement in a housing redevelopment project in Newark, New Jersey that a Company entity undertook during the 1990s. We understand that the development is in the vicinity of a former lead smelter and that recent tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA show elevated levels of lead. We also understand that the smelter operated before the City of Newark acquired properties, demolished structures existing on them, and sold the properties to the Company entity in connection with the redevelopment project. We responded to the EPA’s initial request and expect to receive an additional information request, to which we will also respond. The EPA’s investigation is in its early stages and we do not know what, if any, obligations the Company may have arising out of it beyond responding to the EPA’s requests for information. We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot predict the effect of these requirements, they could result in time-consuming and expensive compliance programs and in substantial expenditures, which could cause delays and increase our cost of operations. In addition, the continued effectiveness of permits already granted or approvals already obtained is dependent upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as changes in policies, rules, and regulations and their interpretations and application. The Company is also involved in the following litigation: Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. have been named as defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D’Andrea and Tracy D’Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company’s homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. We filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and we filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2012 reviewing the Superior Court’s original finding of class certification. We anticipate a ruling from the Appellate Division on the issue of class certification within the next few months. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company believes there is insurance coverage available to it for this action. While we have determined that a loss related to this case is not probable, it is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this time given the class certification is still in review by the Appellate Division. On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company filed a separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufactures and subcontractors implicated by the class action.

Note 7

6 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2013

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

7. We are involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, and we are subject to extensive and complex regulations that affect the development and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These regulations often provide broad discretion to the administering governmental authorities. This can delay or increase the cost of development or homebuilding.

We also are subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations concerning protection of health and the environment. The particular environmental laws that apply to any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions and the present and former uses of the site. These environmental laws may result in delays, may cause us to incur substantial compliance, remediation and/or other costs, and can prohibit or severely restrict development and homebuilding activity.

We received in October 2012 a notice from Region III of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concerning stipulated penalties, totaling approximately $120,000, based on the extent to which we reportedly did not meet certain compliance performance specified in the previously reported consent decree entered into in August 2010; we have since paid the stipulated penalties as assessed. Until terminated by court order, which can occur no sooner than three years from the date of its entry, the consent decree remains in effect and could give rise to additional assessments of stipulated penalties. In October 2012, we also received notices from Region III of EPA concerning alleged violations of stormwater discharge permits, issued in 2010 pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, at two projects in Maryland; we negotiated with the EPA two orders, which the EPA issued in February 2013, to resolve the violations. One requires us to pay a penalty of $130,000, while the other obligates us to take certain measures to comply with those permits and detail the specific compliance measures we take, among other things; our obligations under the orders will not materially affect us.

In March 2013, we received a letter from the EPA requesting information about our involvement in a housing redevelopment project in Newark, New Jersey that a Company entity undertook during the 1990s. We understand that the development is in the vicinity of a former lead smelter and that recent tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA show elevated levels of lead. We also understand that the smelter operated before the City of Newark acquired properties, demolished structures existing on them, and sold the properties to the Company entity in connection with the redevelopment project. We responded to the EPA’s initial request and expect to receive an additional information request, to which we will also respond. The EPA’s investigation is in its early stages and we do not know what, if any, obligations the Company may have arising out of it beyond responding to the EPA’s requests for information.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot predict the effect of these requirements, they could result in time-consuming and expensive compliance programs and in substantial expenditures, which could cause delays and increase our cost of operations. In addition, the continued effectiveness of permits already granted or approvals already obtained is dependent upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as changes in policies, rules, and regulations and their interpretations and application.

The Company is also involved in the following litigation:

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. have been named as defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D’Andrea and Tracy D’Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company’s homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. We filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and we filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2012 reviewing the Superior Court’s original finding of class certification. We anticipate a ruling from the Appellate Division on the issue of class certification within the next few months. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company believes there is insurance coverage available to it for this action. While we have determined that a loss related to this case is not probable, it is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this time given the class certification is still in review by the Appellate Division. On December 19, 2011, certain subsidiaries of the Company filed a separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufactures and subcontractors implicated by the class action.