Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies	Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations. With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, or investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred. We have $9.4 million as of September 30, 2012 and $6.9 million as of December 31, 2011 reserved for litigation and regulatory contingency matters. FDIC On May 9, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), as successor to eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”), and several of its current and former affiliates. The FDIC complaint alleged that eAppraiseIT was grossly negligent and breached its contract with WaMu in the provision of appraisal services in 2006 and 2007 relating to 194 residential mortgage loans. On November 14, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's gross negligence, alter ego, single business enterprise and joint venture claims, and a portion of the breach of contract claim. On November 30, 2011, the FDIC filed its first amended complaint, alleging only breach of contract claims and naming only CVS and its parent CoreLogic Real Estate Solutions, LLC f/k/a First American Real Estate Solutions, LLC as defendants. The amended complaint sought to recover losses of at least $129.0 million that the FDIC alleges WaMu suffered on loans allegedly related to these appraisal services. On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's $16.0 million breach of contract claim related to 26 appraisal services allegedly provided before the effective date of the WaMu - eAppraiseIT Agreement. On February 16, 2012, the FDIC filed a second amended complaint reasserting that claim. On April 25, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss that $16.0 million claim with prejudice. The defendants intend to defend against the remaining claims vigorously; however, they may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. New York Attorney General On September 27, 2012, the Company and its subsidiary CVS, as successors in interest respectively to The First American Corporation (“First American”) and eAppraiseIT, entered into a settlement with the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York in connection with the Attorney General's lawsuit in New York state court filed in 2007 against First American and eAppraiseIT. The lawsuit concerned appraisal management services eAppraiseIT had provided to WaMu in New York between June 2006 and November 2007. The Attorney General subsequently dropped all damage claims, but continued to seek civil penalties and related relief. In November 2011 the Company announced that it had decided to exit the business of CVS and in May 2012 the Company announced that CVS was being wound down and would be closed by September 30, 2012. Thereafter, in conjunction with the wind-down activities, defendants entered into the settlement in order to avoid further expense, time and uncertainty of continued litigation regarding this discontinued business, and without any findings or admissions as to any of the Attorney General's allegations. In performance of the settlement, on October 4, 2012 CVS paid the Attorney General civil penalties in the sum of $4.0 million, together with costs, fees and disbursements in the sum of $3.8 million. As a result, the Attorney General has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and released the defendants from all claims concerning any appraisal or appraisal management services provided by either defendant to or on behalf of WaMu. The settlement amounts were recorded in the results of discontinued operations. RESPA Class Action On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim. On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order. CVS, as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. FCRA Class Action On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Teletrack, Inc. (“Teletrack”), one of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit. On September 20, 2011, Teletrack filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. Teletrack has denied the allegations and is defending against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any. Separation As part of the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities. In the Separation and Distribution Agreement, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary in accordance with GAAP. At September 30, 2012, no reserves were considered necessary. In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's financial services business with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

We have been named in various lawsuits. Also, we may from time to time be subject to audit or investigation by governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are auditing or investigating certain of our operations.

With respect to matters where we have determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, we have recorded a liability representing our best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such audit, or investigation or lawsuit is not yet determinable, we do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, we do not believe there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss exceeding amounts already accrued may have been incurred. We record expenses for legal fees as incurred.

We have $9.4 million as of September 30, 2012 and $6.9 million as of December 31, 2011 reserved for litigation and regulatory contingency matters.

FDIC

On May 9, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against CoreLogic Valuation Services, LLC (“CVS”), as successor to eAppraiseIT, LLC (“eAppraiseIT”), and several of its current and former affiliates.

The FDIC complaint alleged that eAppraiseIT was grossly negligent and breached its contract with WaMu in the provision of appraisal services in 2006 and 2007 relating to 194 residential mortgage loans. On November 14, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's gross negligence, alter ego, single business enterprise and joint venture claims, and a portion of the breach of contract claim. On November 30, 2011, the FDIC filed its first amended complaint, alleging only breach of contract claims and naming only CVS and its parent CoreLogic Real Estate Solutions, LLC f/k/a First American Real Estate Solutions, LLC as defendants. The amended complaint sought to recover losses of at least $129.0 million that the FDIC alleges WaMu suffered on loans allegedly related to these appraisal services. On February 6, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the FDIC's $16.0 million breach of contract claim related to 26 appraisal services allegedly provided before the effective date of the WaMu - eAppraiseIT Agreement. On February 16, 2012, the FDIC filed a second amended complaint reasserting that claim. On April 25, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss that $16.0 million claim with prejudice.

The defendants intend to defend against the remaining claims vigorously; however, they may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

New York Attorney General

On September 27, 2012, the Company and its subsidiary CVS, as successors in interest respectively to The First American Corporation (“First American”) and eAppraiseIT, entered into a settlement with the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York in connection with the Attorney General's lawsuit in New York state court filed in 2007 against First American and eAppraiseIT. The lawsuit concerned appraisal management services eAppraiseIT had provided to WaMu in New York between June 2006 and November 2007. The Attorney General subsequently dropped all damage claims, but continued to seek civil penalties and related relief. In November 2011 the Company announced that it had decided to exit the business of CVS and in May 2012 the Company announced that CVS was being wound down and would be closed by September 30, 2012. Thereafter, in conjunction with the wind-down activities, defendants entered into the settlement in order to avoid further expense, time and uncertainty of continued litigation regarding this discontinued business, and without any findings or admissions as to any of the Attorney General's allegations.

In performance of the settlement, on October 4, 2012 CVS paid the Attorney General civil penalties in the sum of $4.0 million, together with costs, fees and disbursements in the sum of $3.8 million. As a result, the Attorney General has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and released the defendants from all claims concerning any appraisal or appraisal management services provided by either defendant to or on behalf of WaMu.

The settlement amounts were recorded in the results of discontinued operations.

RESPA Class Action

On February 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, against WaMu and eAppraiseIT alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint alleged a conspiracy between WaMu and eAppraiseIT to allow WaMu to direct appraisers to artificially inflate appraisals in order to qualify higher value loans that WaMu could then sell in the secondary market. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed WaMu on March 9, 2009. On August 30, 2009, the court dismissed all claims against eAppraiseIT except the RESPA claim.

On July 2, 2010, the court denied plaintiff's first motion for class certification. On November 19, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. On April 25, 2012, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion and certified a nationwide class of all persons who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans from WaMu in connection with appraisals that were obtained through eAppraiseIT. On July 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the class certification order.

CVS, as the successor to eAppraiseIT, intends to defend against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

FCRA Class Action

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Teletrack, Inc. (“Teletrack”), one of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that Teletrack has been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses and cost of suit. On September 20, 2011, Teletrack filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. That motion was denied on March 7, 2012. Teletrack has denied the allegations and is defending against this claim vigorously; however, it may not be successful. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of damages, if any.

Separation

As part of the Separation, we are responsible for a portion of FAFC's contingent and other corporate liabilities.

In the Separation and Distribution Agreement, we agreed with FAFC to share equally in the cost of resolution of a small number of corporate-level lawsuits, including certain consolidated securities litigation matters from which we have since been dropped. There were no liabilities incurred in connection with the consolidated securities matters. Responsibility to manage each case has been assigned to either FAFC or us, with the managing party required to update the other party regularly and consult with the other party prior to certain important decisions such as settlement. The managing party will also have primary responsibility for determining the ultimate total liability, if any, related to the applicable case. We will record our share of any such liability when the responsible party determines a reserve is necessary in accordance with GAAP.

At September 30, 2012, no reserves were considered necessary.

In addition, the Separation and Distribution Agreement provides for cross-indemnities principally designed to place financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's financial services business with FAFC and financial responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of FAC's information solutions business with us. Specifically, each party will, and will cause its subsidiaries and affiliates to, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party, its respective affiliates and subsidiaries and each of its respective officers, directors, employees and agents for any losses arising out of or otherwise in connection with the liabilities each such party assumed or retained pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement; and any breach by such party of the Separation and Distribution Agreement.