Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Litigation 2013 Litigation Settlement On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., “Cash America”), Daniel R. Feehan (the Company’s chief executive officer), and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and “stakeholders” of Cash America. In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia’s usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota (“FNB”), and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota (“CSB”), for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America’s Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB’s involvement in the process is “a mere subterfuge.” Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the “de facto” lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit. This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding (the “Settlement Memorandum”). Pursuant to the Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing the full terms of the settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013, and the trial court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on November 4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial court issued its final approval of the settlement and entered the Final Order and Judgment. The Settlement Agreement required a minimum payment by the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs (including the costs of claims administration) (the “Class Claims and Costs”), all of which will count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The Company denies all of the material allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described in the lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation. In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability was recorded in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets and “Operations and administration expense” in the consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs have been finalized, and the Company is required to pay $18.6 million in connection with the Class Claims and Costs, $18.3 million of which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2014. Ohio Litigation On May 28, 2009, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland (“Cashland”), filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria Municipal Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr. Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his loan agreement. Cashland’s loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act (“OMLA”), which allows for interest at a rate of 25% per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the statute. The Municipal Court, in Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Rodney Scott, held that short-term, single-payment consumer loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for consumer loans with similar terms. Due to a cap on interest and loan fees at an amount that is less than permitted under the OMLA, the Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law. On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court’s ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other Ohio courts may consider this decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company’s appeal of the Ninth District Court’s decision in December 2013, and a decision is expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District Court’s decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal, the Company’s Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in connection with these lawsuits, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary, for these litigation matters. The Company believes that the Plaintiffs’ claims in these suits are without merit and will vigorously defend these lawsuits. The Company is also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters encountered in the ordinary course of its business. Certain of these matters are covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau On November 20, 2013, the Company consented to the issuance of a Consent Order by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) pursuant to which it agreed, without admitting or denying any of the facts or conclusions made by the CFPB from its 2012 review of the Company, among other things, to set aside $8.0 million of cash for a period of 180 days to fund any further payments to eligible Ohio customers who make valid claims in connection with the Company’s voluntary program that was announced in December 2012 to fully reimburse approximately 14,000 Ohio customers for all funds collected, plus interest accrued from the date collected, in connection with legal collections proceedings initiated by the Company in Ohio from January 1, 2008 through December 4, 2012 (the “Ohio Reimbursement Program”). The decision to make voluntary reimbursements in connection with the Ohio Reimbursement Program was made by the Company in 2012 because the Company determined that a small number of employees did not prepare certain court documents in many of its Ohio legal collections proceedings in accordance with court rules. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had refunded approximately $6.4 million in connection with this program.

Litigation

2013 Litigation Settlement

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., “Cash America”), Daniel R. Feehan (the Company’s chief executive officer), and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and “stakeholders” of Cash America. In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia’s usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota (“FNB”), and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota (“CSB”), for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America’s Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB’s involvement in the process is “a mere subterfuge.” Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the “de facto” lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.

This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding (the “Settlement Memorandum”). Pursuant to the Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing the full terms of the settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013, and the trial court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on November 4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial court issued its final approval of the settlement and entered the Final Order and Judgment. The Settlement Agreement required a minimum payment by the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs (including the costs of claims administration) (the “Class Claims and Costs”), all of which will count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The Company denies all of the material allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described in the lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.

In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability was recorded in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets and “Operations and administration expense” in the consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs have been finalized, and the Company is required to pay $18.6 million in connection with the Class Claims and Costs, $18.3 million of which was paid during the three months ended March 31, 2014.

Ohio Litigation

On May 28, 2009, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland (“Cashland”), filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria Municipal Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr. Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his loan agreement. Cashland’s loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act (“OMLA”), which allows for interest at a rate of 25% per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the statute. The Municipal Court, in Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Rodney Scott, held that short-term, single-payment consumer loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for consumer loans with similar terms. Due to a cap on interest and loan fees at an amount that is less than permitted under the OMLA, the Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law.

On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court’s ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other Ohio courts may consider this decision.

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company’s appeal of the Ninth District Court’s decision in December 2013, and a decision is expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District Court’s decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal, the Company’s Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in connection with these lawsuits, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies-Loss Contingencies-Glossary, for these litigation matters. The Company believes that the Plaintiffs’ claims in these suits are without merit and will vigorously defend these lawsuits.

The Company is also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters encountered in the ordinary course of its business. Certain of these matters are covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

On November 20, 2013, the Company consented to the issuance of a Consent Order by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) pursuant to which it agreed, without admitting or denying any of the facts or conclusions made by the CFPB from its 2012 review of the Company, among other things, to set aside $8.0 million of cash for a period of 180 days to fund any further payments to eligible Ohio customers who make valid claims in connection with the Company’s voluntary program that was announced in December 2012 to fully reimburse approximately 14,000 Ohio customers for all funds collected, plus interest accrued from the date collected, in connection with legal collections proceedings initiated by the Company in Ohio from January 1, 2008 through December 4, 2012 (the “Ohio Reimbursement Program”). The decision to make voluntary reimbursements in connection with the Ohio Reimbursement Program was made by the Company in 2012 because the Company determined that a small number of employees did not prepare certain court documents in many of its Ohio legal collections proceedings in accordance with court rules. As of March 31, 2014, the Company had refunded approximately $6.4 million in connection with this program.