Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company establishes an accrued liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company will evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record an accrued liability based on the minimum amount in the range, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. The Company evaluates quarterly whether further developments could affect the amount of the accrued liability previously established or would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss will be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the recorded liability. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and to assess whether a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Based on current knowledge, the Company does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period. On November 3, 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against St. Joe and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al., No. 5:11-cv-27). On January 12, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and judgment was entered in favor of St. Joe and the individual defendants. On February 25, 2013, the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit complaint was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. On April 30, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. The plaintiff's time to file a petition for writ of certiorari expired on July 29, 2013. On March 29, 2011 and July 21, 2011, two separate derivative lawsuits were filed by shareholders on behalf of St. Joe against certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Nakata v. Greene et. al., No. 5:11-cv-00090 and Packer v. Greene, et al., No. 3:11-cv-00344). The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those described above in the Meyer case. These two actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the outcome of the Meyer case. On September 12, 2011, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Florida (Shurkin v. Berkowitz, et al., No. 5:11-cv-304) making similar claims as those in the Nakata and Packer actions. On June 4, 2012, the court granted the parties a motion to stay the Shurkin action pending the outcome of the Meyer action. The plaintiff in the Shurkin action filed a Notice of Dismissal, which the court granted, without prejudice, on April 1, 2013. The Company believes that the final disposition of the Meyer case should result in the dismissal of the remaining derivative lawsuits. To the extent that such cases are not dismissed, the Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend the actions vigorously. The Company has not established a liability for the Meyer case nor the derivative cases, because it believes that the probability of loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. In addition, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can it predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to provide an estimated range of loss. On January 4, 2011 the SEC notified the Company it was conducting an inquiry into the Company’s policies and practices concerning impairment of investment in real estate assets. On June 24, 2011, the Company received notice from the SEC that it had issued a related order of private investigation. The order of private investigation covers a variety of matters for the period beginning January 1, 2007 including (a) the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws as applicable to the Company and its past and present officers, directors, employees, partners, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, and/or other persons or entities, (b) compliance by past and present reporting persons or entities who were or are directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock (which includes Fairholme Funds, Inc., Fairholme Capital Management L.L.C. and the Company’s current Chairman Bruce R. Berkowitz) with their reporting obligations under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, (c) internal controls, (d) books and records, (e) communications with auditors and (f) financial reports. The order designates officers of the SEC to take the testimony of the Company and third parties with respect to any or all of these matters. The Company is currently cooperating with the SEC on historical matters as well as from time to time communicating and providing relevant information regarding the Company’s change in investment strategy and impairments, including most recently in 2013. The Company has not established a liability for this matter, because it believes that the probability of loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. In addition, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can it predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to provide an estimated range of loss. The Company is subject to costs arising out of environmental laws and regulations, which include obligations to remove or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites, including sites which have been previously sold. It is the Company’s policy to accrue and charge against earnings environmental cleanup costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, these accruals are reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, as additional information becomes available. The Company’s former paper mill site in Gulf County and certain adjacent properties are subject to various Consent Agreements and Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The paper mill site has been rehabilitated by Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in accordance with these agreements. The Company is in the process of assessing certain adjacent properties. Management is unable to quantify future rehabilitation costs above present accruals at this time or provide a reasonably estimated range of loss. Other proceedings and litigation involving environmental matters are pending against the Company. Aggregate environmental-related accruals were $1.5 million and $1.6 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Although the final resolution of the environmental litigation matters or governmental proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, it is possible that any final judgment could have a material impact on the results of operations or cash flows of the Company. The Company has retained certain self-insurance risks with respect to losses for third party liability and property damage. At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company was party to surety bonds related to certain development projects of $9.6 million and $10.3 million and standby letters of credit in the amount of $0.8 million and $1.1 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, which may potentially result in liability to the Company if certain obligations of the Company are not met. The Company's supply agreement with RockTenn that requires the Company to deliver and sell a total of 3.9 million tons of pine pulpwood through December 2017. Pricing under the agreement approximates market, using a formula based on published regional prices for pine pulpwood. The agreement is assignable by the Company, in whole or in part, to purchasers of its properties, or any interest therein, and does not contain a lien, encumbrance, or use restriction on any of St. Joe's properties. The construction loan entered into by the Pier Park North joint venture requires the Company to provide certain guarantees and covenants as described in Note 5, Variable Interest Entities.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company establishes an accrued liability when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company will evaluate the range of reasonably estimated losses and record an accrued liability based on the minimum amount in the range, unless an amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of the amounts accrued. The Company evaluates quarterly whether further developments could affect the amount of the accrued liability previously established or would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss will be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed the recorded liability. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and to assess whether a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss can be made. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate.

Based on current knowledge, the Company does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

On November 3, 2010, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against St. Joe and certain of our current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Meyer v. The St. Joe Company et al., No. 5:11-cv-27). On January 12, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and judgment was entered in favor of St. Joe and the individual defendants. On February 25, 2013, the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit complaint was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. On April 30, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. The plaintiff's time to file a petition for writ of certiorari expired on July 29, 2013.

On March 29, 2011 and July 21, 2011, two separate derivative lawsuits were filed by shareholders on behalf of St. Joe against certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Nakata v. Greene et. al., No. 5:11-cv-00090 and Packer v. Greene, et al., No. 3:11-cv-00344). The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising from substantially similar allegations as those described above in the Meyer case. These two actions have been consolidated and are stayed pending the outcome of the Meyer case.

On September 12, 2011, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Florida (Shurkin v. Berkowitz, et al., No. 5:11-cv-304) making similar claims as those in the Nakata and Packer actions. On June 4, 2012, the court granted the parties a motion to stay the Shurkin action pending the outcome of the Meyer action. The plaintiff in the Shurkin action filed a Notice of Dismissal, which the court granted, without prejudice, on April 1, 2013.

The Company believes that the final disposition of the Meyer case should result in the dismissal of the remaining derivative lawsuits. To the extent that such cases are not dismissed, the Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend the actions vigorously. The Company has not established a liability for the Meyer case nor the derivative cases, because it believes that the probability of loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. In addition, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can it predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to provide an estimated range of loss.

On January 4, 2011 the SEC notified the Company it was conducting an inquiry into the Company’s policies and practices concerning impairment of investment in real estate assets. On June 24, 2011, the Company received notice from the SEC that it had issued a related order of private investigation. The order of private investigation covers a variety of matters for the period beginning January 1, 2007 including (a) the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws as applicable to the Company and its past and present officers, directors, employees, partners, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, and/or other persons or entities, (b) compliance by past and present reporting persons or entities who were or are directly or indirectly the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock (which includes Fairholme Funds, Inc., Fairholme Capital Management L.L.C. and the Company’s current Chairman Bruce R. Berkowitz) with their reporting obligations under Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, (c) internal controls, (d) books and records, (e) communications with auditors and (f) financial reports. The order designates officers of the SEC to take the testimony of the Company and third parties with respect to any or all of these matters. The Company is currently cooperating with the SEC on historical matters as well as from time to time communicating and providing relevant information regarding the Company’s change in investment strategy and impairments, including most recently in 2013. The Company has not established a liability for this matter, because it believes that the probability of loss related to this litigation and an estimate of the amount of loss, if any, are not determinable at this time. In addition, the Company cannot evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor can it predict the amount or range of possible loss from an unfavorable outcome to provide an estimated range of loss.

The Company is subject to costs arising out of environmental laws and regulations, which include obligations to remove or limit the effects on the environment of the disposal or release of certain wastes or substances at various sites, including sites which have been previously sold. It is the Company’s policy to accrue and charge against earnings environmental cleanup costs when it is probable that a liability has been incurred or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. As assessments and cleanups proceed, these accruals are reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, as additional information becomes available.

The Company’s former paper mill site in Gulf County and certain adjacent properties are subject to various Consent Agreements and Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The paper mill site has been rehabilitated by Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation in accordance with these agreements. The Company is in the process of assessing certain adjacent properties. Management is unable to quantify future rehabilitation costs above present accruals at this time or provide a reasonably estimated range of loss.

Other proceedings and litigation involving environmental matters are pending against the Company. Aggregate environmental-related accruals were $1.5 million and $1.6 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Although the final resolution of the environmental litigation matters or governmental proceedings is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, it is possible that any final judgment could have a material impact on the results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

The Company has retained certain self-insurance risks with respect to losses for third party liability and property damage.

At June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the Company was party to surety bonds related to certain development projects of $9.6 million and $10.3 million and standby letters of credit in the amount of $0.8 million and $1.1 million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, which may potentially result in liability to the Company if certain obligations of the Company are not met.

The Company's supply agreement with RockTenn that requires the Company to deliver and sell a total of 3.9 million tons of pine pulpwood through December 2017. Pricing under the agreement approximates market, using a formula based on published regional prices for pine pulpwood. The agreement is assignable by the Company, in whole or in part, to purchasers of its properties, or any interest therein, and does not contain a lien, encumbrance, or use restriction on any of St. Joe's properties.

The construction loan entered into by the Pier Park North joint venture requires the Company to provide certain guarantees and covenants as described in Note 5, Variable Interest Entities.