XML 19 R55.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments And Contingencies (Details) | 3 Months Ended |  |
--- | --- | --- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020 USD ($) | Dec. 31, 2019 USD ($) | Jul. 31, 2006 Independent_Companies
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |  |  |
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to allegations: •that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by Realogy Brokerage Group or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against Realogy Brokerage Group for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or similar claims against Realogy Franchise Group as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents; •concerning other employment law matters, including other types of worker classification claims as well as wage and hour claims and retaliation claims; •concerning anti-trust and anti-competition matters; •that the Company is vicariously liable for the acts of franchisees under theories of actual or apparent agency; •by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations; •concerning alleged RESPA or state real estate law violations; •concerning claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including autodialer claims; •concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history; •related to copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder; •concerning breach of obligations to make websites and other services accessible for consumers with disabilities; •concerning claims generally against the title agent contending that the agent knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or that the agent was negligent in addressing title defects or conducting the settlement; •concerning information security and cyber-crime, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information, as well as those related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds; and •those related to general fraud claims. Worker Classification Litigation Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County). This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based on the alleged violations described above. On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The PAGA claims included in the amended complaint are substantively similar to those asserted in the original complaint. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of the non-PAGA claims and to stay the PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitrable claims. On June 5, 2019, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s non-PAGA claims without prejudice and withdrew the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration by stipulation of the parties. The plaintiff continues to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. The plaintiff currently seeks, as the representative of all purported aggrieved employees, all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys’ fees. On November 15, 2019, Century 21 M&M filed a demurrer to the complaint, seeking to dismiss the remaining claim in the action, to which Century 21 filed a joinder, and on February 12, 2020 a brief in opposition was filed by the plaintiff. The hearing on the demurrer has been deferred and will not be heard until the courts reopen in California and resume addressing non-emergent civil motions. Fenley v. Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Wish Properties, Inc. and DOES 1-100 (Superior Court of California, Kern County). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 25, 2019 by plaintiff Elizabeth Fenley against Wish Properties, Inc, a Sotheby’s International Realty independently-owned franchisee doing business as Wish Sotheby’s International Realty (“Wish SIR”). The complaint also names Realogy Franchise Group LLC and Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, as alleged joint employers of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents in California affiliated with any Realogy Franchise Group brand. The plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly responsible for misclassifying Wish SIR’s agents as independent contractors and failed to reimburse for business expenses, provide accurate wage statements and pay wages timely, all in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based on the violations previously described. The plaintiff seeks reimbursement of allegedly necessary expenses, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 17, 2019, the Court denied the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. In February 2020, the matter was settled on an individual basis. These cases raise various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claims in the Whitlach matter add additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties. There are similar classification cases pending against several other brokerages in the state of California and developments in one or more of those cases could impact progress in these cases. Real Estate Industry Litigation Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported in our Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl complaint). In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in the case, which has yet to be decided by the Court. On August 9, 2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint) each filed separate motions to dismiss this litigation. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on September 13, 2019, and the defendants filed their replies in support of the motions on October 18, 2019. Discovery between the parties is stayed pending rulings on the outstanding motions to dismiss this litigation. Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation. The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). Discovery between the parties is ongoing. Securities Litigation Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company’s common stock between February 24, 2017 through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust (the “Retirement Trust”), was appointed lead plaintiff on November 7, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on March 6, 2020 and the Company has until August 3, 2020 to file its response per the stipulation of the parties entered by the Court on March 25, 2020. Fried v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This is a putative derivative action filed on October 23, 2019 by plaintiff Adam Fried against the Company (as nominal defendant) and certain of its current and former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors (as defendants). The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duties for, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations and prospects as well as unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, disgorgement of improper compensation, certain reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 23, 2019, the Court approved a motion staying this case pending further action in the Tanaskovic matter. The Company disputes the allegations in each of the captioned matters described above and will vigorously defend these actions. Given the early stages of each of these cases, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for this litigation. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable. Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur. In addition, class action lawsuits can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle. As such, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period. * * * Company-Initiated Litigation Realogy Holdings Corp. v. SIRVA Worldwide, Inc., North American Van Lines, Inc., Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P., Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-C, L.P., and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII Executive-A, L.P. (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). On April 27, 2020, the Company filed a complaint against affiliates of MDP and SIRVA to enforce SIRVA’s obligations under the Purchase Agreement for the sale of the Company’s employee relocation services business. The Company alleges breach of contract and seeks specific performance by SIRVA to perform its obligations under the Purchase Agreement, or in the alternative, ordering the defendants to specifically perform their contractual obligations to pay the Company a $30 million termination fee, as well as costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. On April 30, 2020, the Company filed a motion to the expedite proceedings and the Court has scheduled a telephonic hearing for such motion on May 8, 2020. Realogy Holdings Corp., NRT New York LLC (d/b/a The Corcoran Group), Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC, NRT West, Inc., Martha Turner Properties, L.P. And Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC v. Urban Compass, Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Supreme Court New York, New York County). On July 10, 2019, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, filed a complaint against Urban Compass, Inc. and Compass, Inc. (together, "Compass") alleging misappropriation of trade secrets; tortious interference with contract; intentional and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; unfair competition under New York common law; violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et. seq. (unfair competition); violations of New York General Business Law Section 349 (deceptive acts or practices); violations of New York General Business Law Sections 350 and 350-a (false advertising); conversion; and aiding and abetting breach of contract. The Company seeks, among other things, actual and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company subsequently amended its complaint (which, among other things, withdrew the count for aiding and abetting breach of contract and added a count for defamation). Beginning in September 2019, Compass filed a series of motions, which the Company opposed, including a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. The Court denied the motion to dismiss in February 2020 as to counts 1 (misappropriation of trade secrets), 4 (tortious interference with contract), 7 (violations of the California Unfair Competition Law) and 11 (defamation). As to the remaining claims, the Court ruled in March 2020, that such claims are not necessarily all subject to Compass' motion to compel arbitration and allowed the parties to further brief the arbitration issue. Given the limited court schedule due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, we do not know when the Court will rule on these supplemental briefings by the parties. * * * The Company is involved in certain other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. Such litigation, regulatory actions and other proceedings may include, but are not limited to, actions relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements, franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, vicarious liability based upon conduct of individuals or entities outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, antitrust and anti-competition claims, general fraud claims (including wire fraud associated with third-party diversion of funds from a brokerage transaction), employment law claims, including claims challenging the classification of our sales agents as independent contractors, wage and hour related claims, and claims related to business actions responsive to the COVID-19 outbreak and governmental and regulatory directives thereto, and claims alleging violations of RESPA, state consumer fraud statutes or federal consumer protection statutes. While the results of such claims and legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe based on information currently available to us that the final outcome of current proceedings against the Company will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common. While most litigation involves claims against the Company, from time to time the Company commences litigation, including litigation against former employees, franchisees and competitors when it alleges that such persons or entities have breached agreements or engaged in other wrongful conduct. * * * Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates Realogy Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Realogy Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant. The due to former parent balance was $18 million at both March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining contingent tax liabilities, (ii) accrued interest on contingent tax liabilities, (iii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iv) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations. Tax Matters The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain. Escrow and Trust Deposits As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $556 million at March 31, 2020 and $475 million at December 31, 2019. These escrow and trust deposits are not assets of the Company and, therefore, are excluded from the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits. |  |
Loss Contingencies [Line Items] |  |  |
Termination fee amount obliged in the Company-initiated litigation | $ 30 |  |
Cendant Spin-off Number of New Independent Companies | Independent_Companies |  |  | 4
Number of New Independent Companies per Cendant Business Unit | Independent_Companies |  |  | 1
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Realogy | 62.50% |  |
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Wyndham | 37.50% |  |
Due to former parent | $ 18,000,000 | $ 18,000,000 |
Noninterest-bearing deposit liabilities | 556,000,000 | $ 475,000,000 |
Maximum |  |  |
Loss Contingencies [Line Items] |  |  |
Cash, FDIC insured amount | $ 250,000 |  |

X
- Definition The number of new independent companies created as a result of Cendant Corporation's spin-off in 2006 (real estate services ("Realogy"), travel distribution services (“Travelport”), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts (“Wyndham Worldwide”), and vehicle rental (“Avis Budget Group”)). + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rlgy_CendantSpinOffNumberOfNewIndependentCompanies
Namespace Prefix: | rlgy_
Data Type: | xbrli:integerItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | instant

X
- Definition Percentage assumed by Wyndham of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant or its subsidiaries, which are not primarily related to any of the respective businesses of Realogy, Wyndham Worldwide, Travelport and/or Cendant’s vehicle rental operations, in each case incurred or allegedly incurred on or prior to the date of the separation of Travelport from Cendant. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rlgy_GuarantyArrangementPercentageOfObligationsAssumedByWyndham
Namespace Prefix: | rlgy_
Data Type: | num:percentItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | instant

X
- Definition The percentage assumed by Realogy of guarantee commitments with Cendant (pursuant to the assumption of certain liabilities and the obligation to indemnify Cendant, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport for such liabilities). These guarantee arrangements primarily relate to certain contingent litigation liabilities, contingent tax liabilities, and other corporate liabilities. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rlgy_GuarantyArrangementPercentageofObligationsAssumedbyRealogy
Namespace Prefix: | rlgy_
Data Type: | num:percentItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | instant

X
- Definition The number of new independent companies created for each of Cendant's business units as a result of Cendant Corporation's spin-off in 2006. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rlgy_NumberOfNewIndependentCompaniesPerCendantBusinessUnit
Namespace Prefix: | rlgy_
Data Type: | xbrli:integerItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | instant

X
- Definition Termination fee amount obliged in the Company-initiated litigation + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rlgy_TerminationFeeAmountObligedInTheCompanyInitiatedLitigation
Namespace Prefix: | rlgy_
Data Type: | xbrli:monetaryItemType
Balance Type: | credit
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The amount of cash deposited in financial institutions as of the balance sheet date that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CashFDICInsuredAmount
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:monetaryItemType
Balance Type: | debit
Period Type: | instant

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition Carrying amount as of the balance sheet date of obligations due all related parties. For classified balance sheets, represents the current portion of such liabilities (due within one year or within the normal operating cycle if longer). + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 850 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (d) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6457730&loc=d3e39549-107864 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 235 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.4-08.(k)(1)) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=120395691&loc=d3e23780-122690 Reference 3: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.19(a)) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=120391452&loc=d3e13212-122682 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_DueToRelatedPartiesCurrent
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:monetaryItemType
Balance Type: | credit
Period Type: | instant

X
- Definition Line items represent financial concepts included in a table. These concepts are used to disclose reportable information associated with domain members defined in one or many axes to the table. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingenciesLineItems
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The aggregate amount of all domestic and foreign noninterest-bearing deposits liabilities held by the entity. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 942 -SubTopic 210 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.9-03.12) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=120398452&loc=d3e534808-122878 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_NoninterestBearingDepositLiabilities
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:monetaryItemType
Balance Type: | credit
Period Type: | instant

X
- Details
Name: | srt_RangeAxis=srt_MaximumMember
Namespace Prefix: |
Data Type: | na
Balance Type: |
Period Type: |