Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	12. Commitments and Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits as plaintiff or defendant involving its collections, lending and prior period tax certificate activities. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses in all current legal actions, the outcome of litigation and the ultimate resolution are uncertain and inherently difficult to predict. Reserves are accrued for matters in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. These accrual amounts as of June 30, 2014 are not material to the Company’s financial statements. The actual costs of resolving these legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for these claims. A range of reasonably possible losses is estimated for matters in which it is reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred or that a loss is probable but not reasonably estimated. Management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as $0 to $4.4 million. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available as of June 30, 2014. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure. In certain matters we are unable to estimate the loss or reasonable range of loss until additional developments in the case provide information sufficient to support an assessment of the loss or range of loss. Frequently in these matters the claims are broad and the plaintiffs have not quantified or factually supported the claim. We believe that liabilities arising from litigation discussed below, in excess of the amounts currently accrued, if any, will not have a material impact to the Company’s financial statements. However, due to the significant uncertainties involved in these legal matters, we may incur losses in excess of accrued amounts and an adverse outcome in these matters could be material to the Company’s financial statements. We have received notices from BB&T regarding a series of pending and threatened claims asserted against BB&T’s subsidiary, Branch Banking and Trust Company, as successor to BankAtlantic, by certain individuals who purport to have had accounts in their names with BankAtlantic prior to consummation of the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T. These third party claims allege wrongful conduct by BankAtlantic in connection with certain alleged unauthorized transactions associated with their accounts. BB&T’s notices assert its belief that it may be entitled to indemnification under the BankAtlantic stock purchase agreement with respect to such claims as well as another third party claim relating to an action which was recently settled by BB&T. On July 31, 2014, BBX Capital and BB&T entered into a tolling agreement with respect to the time period within which BB&T may assert a claim for indemnity under the stock purchase agreement with respect to such claims. The following is a description of certain ongoing or recently concluded litigation matters: BBX Shareholders Lawsuit Challenging the Merger with BFC On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital’s board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital’s shareholders in a lawsuit challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC and BBX Capital. In this action, which is styled Haim Ronan, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high enough price for the shares of BBX Capital’s Class A Common Stock to be acquired by BFC in the merger. Mr. Ronan also asserted a cause of action against BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Ronan is seeking an injunction blocking the proposed merger. On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P. Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the defendants named in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, challenging the currently proposed merger for substantially the same reasons as set forth in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, but asserting an additional, direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC, Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo. Mr. Lauterbach also added as defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital’s board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who serves as an executive officer and director of BFC and as an executive officer of BBX Capital, and John K. Grelle, who serves as an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital. On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action. In the amended complaint, which includes the same causes of action set forth in the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) allege that the merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and conditions of the merger agreement, is unfair to BBX Capital’s minority shareholders and is the product of unfair dealing on the part of the defendants; (ii) allege that the defendants initiated, timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the benefit of BFC and to the detriment of BBX Capital’s minority shareholders, including that BFC and its and BBX Capital’s management caused BBX Capital to engage in transactions which had the effect of reducing BBX Capital’s intrinsic value; (iii) challenge the independence of the members of BBX Capital’s special committee and the process pursuant to which BBX Capital’s special committee engaged its legal and financial advisors, and negotiated and approved the merger agreement, including limitations on its ability to pursue alternative transactions; (iv) assert that BBX Capital’s shareholders’ rights to appraisal do not constitute an adequate remedy; and (v) allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misrepresentations and does not contain adequate disclosure regarding the merger and specifically the value of BBX Capital and the shares of its Class A Common Stock, and fails to provide the plaintiffs and BBX Capital’s minority shareholders the information necessary to determine whether the merger consideration is fair. On November 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiffs’ remedies were limited to an action for appraisal under Florida law. On April 8, 2014, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On April 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint added allegations with respect to BBX Capital’s March 21, 2014 definitive proxy statement. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that in the definitive proxy statement defendants set a vote date of April 29, 2014, but failed to provide full and accurate disclosure regarding: (i) the timing of the merger, (ii) the status of the listing of the new shares; (iii) transactions impacting valuation following the negotiation of the exchange ratio; (iv) the per share value of shares held by BBX Capital’s minority shareholders and (v) the fundamental assumptions underlying the opinion of BBX Capital’s financial advisor. BBX Capital and BFC believe the claims to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. Securities and Exchange Commission Complaint On January 18, 2012, the SEC brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against BBX Capital and Alan B. Levan, BBX Capital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, alleging that they violated securities laws by not timely disclosing known adverse trends in BBX Capital’s commercial real estate loans, selectively disclosing problem loans and engaging in improper accounting treatment of certain specific loans which may have resulted in a material understatement of its net loss in BBX Capital’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. Further, the complaint alleges that Mr. Alan B. Levan intentionally misled investors in related earnings calls. The SEC is seeking a finding by the court of violations of securities laws, a permanent injunction barring future violations, civil money penalties and, in the case of Mr. Alan B. Levan, an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company. Discovery in the action is now closed. The Court has denied summary judgment as to most issues, but granted the SEC’s motion for partial summary judgment that certain statements in one of Alan Levan’s answers on a July 25, 2007 investor conference call were false. The grant of partial summary judgment does not resolve any of the SEC’s claims in its favor; with respect to Mr. Alan Levan’s answer on the July 25, 2007 conference call, the jury will still determine issues relating to materiality and scienter. The case was recently transferred to a new judge and is currently on the trial calendar during the two-week period beginning on November 3, 2014. BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions. New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as “all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%.” Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs’ main antitrust claim. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax have moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to all claims, and are awaiting the Court’s decision on the fully-briefed motion. BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.

12. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits as plaintiff or defendant involving its collections, lending and prior period tax certificate activities. Although the Company believes it has meritorious defenses in all current legal actions, the outcome of litigation and the ultimate resolution are uncertain and inherently difficult to predict.

Reserves are accrued for matters in which it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. These accrual amounts as of June 30, 2014 are not material to the Company’s financial statements. The actual costs of resolving these legal claims may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for these claims.

A range of reasonably possible losses is estimated for matters in which it is reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred or that a loss is probable but not reasonably estimated. Management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as $0 to $4.4 million. This estimated range of reasonably possible losses represents the estimated possible losses over the life of such legal matters, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available as of June 30, 2014. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those matters for which a reasonable estimate is not possible are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure.

In certain matters we are unable to estimate the loss or reasonable range of loss until additional developments in the case provide information sufficient to support an assessment of the loss or range of loss. Frequently in these matters the claims are broad and the plaintiffs have not quantified or factually supported the claim.

We believe that liabilities arising from litigation discussed below, in excess of the amounts currently accrued, if any, will not have a material impact to the Company’s financial statements. However, due to the significant uncertainties involved in these legal matters, we may incur losses in excess of accrued amounts and an adverse outcome in these matters could be material to the Company’s financial statements.

We have received notices from BB&T regarding a series of pending and threatened claims asserted against BB&T’s subsidiary, Branch Banking and Trust Company, as successor to BankAtlantic, by certain individuals who purport to have had accounts in their names with BankAtlantic prior to consummation of the sale of BankAtlantic to BB&T. These third party claims allege wrongful conduct by BankAtlantic in connection with certain alleged unauthorized transactions associated with their accounts. BB&T’s notices assert its belief that it may be entitled to indemnification under the BankAtlantic stock purchase agreement with respect to such claims as well as another third party claim relating to an action which was recently settled by BB&T. On July 31, 2014, BBX Capital and BB&T entered into a tolling agreement with respect to the time period within which BB&T may assert a claim for indemnity under the stock purchase agreement with respect to such claims.

The following is a description of certain ongoing or recently concluded litigation matters:

BBX Shareholders Lawsuit Challenging the Merger with BFC

On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital’s board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital’s shareholders in a lawsuit challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC and BBX Capital. In this action, which is styled Haim Ronan, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B. Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high enough price for the shares of BBX Capital’s Class A Common Stock to be acquired by BFC in the merger. Mr. Ronan also asserted a cause of action against BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Ronan is seeking an injunction blocking the proposed merger. On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto, Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P. Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the defendants named in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, challenging the currently proposed merger for substantially the same reasons as set forth in Mr. Ronan’s complaint, but asserting an additional, direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC, Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo. Mr. Lauterbach also added as defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital’s board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who serves as an executive officer and director of BFC and as an executive officer of BBX Capital, and John K. Grelle, who serves as an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital. On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action. In the amended complaint, which includes the same causes of action set forth in the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) allege that the merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and conditions of the merger agreement, is unfair to BBX Capital’s minority shareholders and is the product of unfair dealing on the part of the defendants; (ii) allege that the defendants initiated, timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the benefit of BFC and to the detriment of BBX Capital’s minority shareholders, including that BFC and its and BBX Capital’s management caused BBX Capital to engage in transactions which had the effect of reducing BBX Capital’s intrinsic value; (iii) challenge the independence of the members of BBX Capital’s special committee and the process pursuant to which BBX Capital’s special committee engaged its legal and financial advisors, and negotiated and approved the merger agreement, including limitations on its ability to pursue alternative transactions; (iv) assert that BBX Capital’s shareholders’ rights to appraisal do not constitute an adequate remedy; and (v) allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misrepresentations and does not contain adequate disclosure regarding the merger and specifically the value of BBX Capital and the shares of its Class A Common Stock, and fails to provide the plaintiffs and BBX Capital’s minority shareholders the information necessary to determine whether the merger consideration is fair. On November 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiffs’ remedies were limited to an action for appraisal under Florida law. On April 8, 2014, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On April 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint added allegations with respect to BBX Capital’s March 21, 2014 definitive proxy statement. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that in the definitive proxy statement defendants set a vote date of April 29, 2014, but failed to provide full and accurate disclosure regarding: (i) the timing of the merger, (ii) the status of the listing of the new shares; (iii) transactions impacting valuation following the negotiation of the exchange ratio; (iv) the per share value of shares held by BBX Capital’s minority shareholders and (v) the fundamental assumptions underlying the opinion of BBX Capital’s financial advisor. BBX Capital and BFC believe the claims to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Securities and Exchange Commission Complaint

On January 18, 2012, the SEC brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against BBX Capital and Alan B. Levan, BBX Capital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, alleging that they violated securities laws by not timely disclosing known adverse trends in BBX Capital’s commercial real estate loans, selectively disclosing problem loans and engaging in improper accounting treatment of certain specific loans which may have resulted in a material understatement of its net loss in BBX Capital’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. Further, the complaint alleges that Mr. Alan B. Levan intentionally misled investors in related earnings calls. The SEC is seeking a finding by the court of violations of securities laws, a permanent injunction barring future violations, civil money penalties and, in the case of Mr. Alan B. Levan, an order barring him from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

Discovery in the action is now closed. The Court has denied summary judgment as to most issues, but granted the SEC’s motion for partial summary judgment that certain statements in one of Alan Levan’s answers on a July 25, 2007 investor conference call were false. The grant of partial summary judgment does not resolve any of the SEC’s claims in its favor; with respect to Mr. Alan Levan’s answer on the July 25, 2007 conference call, the jury will still determine issues relating to materiality and scienter. The case was recently transferred to a new judge and is currently on the trial calendar during the two-week period beginning on November 3, 2014. BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.

New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as “all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%.” Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs’ main antitrust claim. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax have moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to all claims, and are awaiting the Court’s decision on the fully-briefed motion. BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.