11.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

NVR is committed under multiple non-cancelable operating leases involving office space, model homes, manufacturing facilities, automobiles and equipment. Future minimum lease payments under these operating leases as of December 31, 2012 are as follows:


Year Ending December 31,
2013	$	19,720
2014		14,228
2015		10,633
2016		8,490
2017		7,297
Thereafter		11,986

		72,354
Sublease income		(631	)

	$	71,723

Total rent expense incurred under operating leases was approximately $33,399, $33,607 and $33,172 for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company generally does not engage in the land development business. Instead, the Company typically acquires finished building lots at market prices from various development entities under fixed price purchase agreements. The purchase agreements require deposits that may be forfeited if the Company fails to perform under the agreement. The deposits required under the purchase agreements are in the form of cash or letters of credit in varying amounts, and typically range up to 10% of the aggregate purchase price of the finished lots. The Company believes this lot acquisition strategy reduces the financial requirements and risks associated with direct land ownership and land development. The Company generally seeks to maintain control over a supply of lots believed to be suitable to meet its five-year business plan. At December 31, 2012, assuming that contractual development milestones are met, the Company is committed to placing additional forfeitable deposits with land developers under existing lot option contracts of $48,982. The Company also has eight specific performance contracts pursuant to which the Company is committed to purchase 71 finished lots at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $7,000.

During the ordinary course of operating the mortgage banking and homebuilding businesses, the Company is required to enter into bond or letter of credit arrangements with local municipalities, government agencies, or land developers to collateralize its obligations under various contracts. The Company had approximately $47,100 of contingent obligations under such agreements (including $9,634 for letters of credit issued under an uncommitted, collateralized letter of credit facility) as of December 31, 2012. The Company believes it will fulfill its obligations under the related contracts and does not anticipate any material losses under these bonds or letters of credit.

The following table reflects the changes in the Company’s warranty reserve (see Note 1 herein for further discussion of warranty/product liability reserves):


	Year Ended December 31, 2012			Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2010
Warranty reserve, beginning of year	$	64,008		$	69,787		$	64,417
Provision		41,138			37,040			44,633
Payments		(42,404	)		(42,819	)		(39,263	)

Warranty reserve, end of year	$	62,742		$	64,008		$	69,787

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. The suits were filed as purported class actions. However, while a number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been certified as a class, and the Company has filed a motion to decertify the federal collective action claim and dismiss the individuals who filed consents from the case. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the New York action.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in compliance with two letter rulings from the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued in January 2007. Courts that have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have acknowledged the DOL’s position that sales and marketing representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt status of such employees concluded that the DOL’s position was valid. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Because the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of this case, or the amount of damages, if any, the Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

In June 2010, the Company received a Request for Information from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The request sought information about storm water discharge practices in connection with homebuilding projects completed or underway by the Company in New York and New Jersey. The Company cooperated with this request, and provided information to the EPA. The Company has since been informed by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) that the EPA forwarded the information on the matter to the DOJ, and the DOJ requested that the Company meet with the government to discuss the status of the case. Meetings took place in January 2012 and August 2012 with representatives from both the EPA and DOJ. It is as yet unclear what next steps the DOJ will take in the matter. The Company intends to continue cooperating with any future EPA and/or DOJ inquiries. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry, nor can it reasonably estimate the potential costs that may be associated with its eventual resolution.

In August 2011, the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL notified the Company that it was initiating an investigation to determine the Company’s compliance with the Fair Standards Labor Act (“FSLA”). In the notice, the DOL requested certain information, including payroll data for a two year period and multiple community-specific items related to the Company’s homebuilding operations. The Company has cooperated with this information request and has either provided or made available the information that the DOL has requested. The DOL has investigated the Company’s headquarters, two manufacturing facilities and certain of its operating divisions. The DOL has communicated that it has not found any violations at any of these operations. The DOL appears to have completed its investigation, although, in accordance with DOL practice, NVR has not been formally notified of such. Thus, the Company cannot predict whether the DOL will investigate other NVR operations. Further, it is important to understand that under the law, the DOL can investigate other NVR operations or even operations that it has previously audited, either on its own initiative or in response to an employee complaint. The Company believes that its payroll practices are in compliance with the FSLA.

The Company and its subsidiaries are also involved in various other litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, and based on advice of legal counsel, this litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. Legal costs incurred in connection with outstanding litigation are expensed as incurred.