Note 19 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	19. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities We are involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, and we are subject to extensive and complex regulations that affect the development and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These regulations often provide broad discretion to the administering governmental authorities. This can delay or increase the cost of development or homebuilding. We also are subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations concerning protection of health and the environment. The particular environmental laws that apply to any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions and the present and former uses of the site. These environmental laws may result in delays, may cause us to incur substantial compliance, remediation and/or other costs, and can prohibit or severely restrict development and homebuilding activity. We received in October 2012 a notice from Region III of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concerning stipulated penalties, totaling approximately $120,000, based on the extent to which we reportedly did not meet certain compliance performance specified in the previously reported consent decree entered into in August 2010; we have since paid the stipulated penalties as assessed, and more recently have paid approximately $8,000 in response to an EPA demand received in June 2013 for stipulated penalties based on information about our performance under the consent decree for 2012. The consent decree was terminated by court order without objection in December 2013. In March 2013, we received a letter from the EPA requesting information about our involvement in a housing redevelopment project in Newark, New Jersey that a Company entity undertook during the 1990s. We understand that the development is in the vicinity of a former lead smelter and that recent tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA show elevated levels of lead. We also understand that the smelter operated before the City of Newark acquired properties, demolished structures existing on them, and sold the properties to the Company entity in connection with the redevelopment project. We responded to the EPA’s request. In August 2013, we were notified that the EPA considers us a potentially responsible party (or “PRP”) with respect to the site, that the EPA believes the site requires cleanup, and that the EPA is proposing that we address contamination at the site. We have begun preliminary discussions with the EPA concerning a possible resolution but do not know the scope or extent of the Company's obligations, if any, that may arise from the site and therefore cannot provide any assurance that this matter will not have a material impact on the Company. We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot predict the effect of these requirements, they could result in time-consuming and expensive compliance programs and in substantial expenditures, which could cause delays and increase our cost of operations. In addition our ability to obtain or renew permits or approvals and the continued effectiveness of permits already granted or approvals already obtained is dependent upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as changes in policies, rules, and regulations and their interpretations and application. The Company is also involved in the following litigation: Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Company Defendants”) have been named as defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D’Andrea and Tracy D’Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company’s homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The Company Defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the Company Defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court’s original finding of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the Company Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division’s decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the appeal on October 22, 2013. Accordingly, the matter is proceeding in the Superior Court and discovery is ongoing. The Company Defendants have pending a motion to consolidate an indemnity action they filed against various manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants so that these parties will be required to participate directly in the class action. The plaintiff class seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants believe there is insurance coverage available for this action. It is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this time.

Note 19 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

19. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

We are involved in litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations, and we are subject to extensive and complex regulations that affect the development and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These regulations often provide broad discretion to the administering governmental authorities. This can delay or increase the cost of development or homebuilding.

We also are subject to a variety of local, state, federal and foreign laws and regulations concerning protection of health and the environment. The particular environmental laws that apply to any given community vary greatly according to the community site, the site’s environmental conditions and the present and former uses of the site. These environmental laws may result in delays, may cause us to incur substantial compliance, remediation and/or other costs, and can prohibit or severely restrict development and homebuilding activity.

We received in October 2012 a notice from Region III of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concerning stipulated penalties, totaling approximately $120,000, based on the extent to which we reportedly did not meet certain compliance performance specified in the previously reported consent decree entered into in August 2010; we have since paid the stipulated penalties as assessed, and more recently have paid approximately $8,000 in response to an EPA demand received in June 2013 for stipulated penalties based on information about our performance under the consent decree for 2012. The consent decree was terminated by court order without objection in December 2013.

In March 2013, we received a letter from the EPA requesting information about our involvement in a housing redevelopment project in Newark, New Jersey that a Company entity undertook during the 1990s. We understand that the development is in the vicinity of a former lead smelter and that recent tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA show elevated levels of lead. We also understand that the smelter operated before the City of Newark acquired properties, demolished structures existing on them, and sold the properties to the Company entity in connection with the redevelopment project. We responded to the EPA’s request. In August 2013, we were notified that the EPA considers us a potentially responsible party (or “PRP”) with respect to the site, that the EPA believes the site requires cleanup, and that the EPA is proposing that we address contamination at the site. We have begun preliminary discussions with the EPA concerning a possible resolution but do not know the scope or extent of the Company's obligations, if any, that may arise from the site and therefore cannot provide any assurance that this matter will not have a material impact on the Company.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot predict the effect of these requirements, they could result in time-consuming and expensive compliance programs and in substantial expenditures, which could cause delays and increase our cost of operations. In addition our ability to obtain or renew permits or approvals and the continued effectiveness of permits already granted or approvals already obtained is dependent upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as changes in policies, rules, and regulations and their interpretations and application.

The Company is also involved in the following litigation:

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Company Defendants”) have been named as defendants in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D’Andrea and Tracy D’Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County. The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company’s homes are in violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a potential safety issue. On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The Company Defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the Company Defendants filed a request for interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012. The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court’s original finding of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the Company Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division’s decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the appeal on October 22, 2013. Accordingly, the matter is proceeding in the Superior Court and discovery is ongoing. The Company Defendants have pending a motion to consolidate an indemnity action they filed against various manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants so that these parties will be required to participate directly in the class action. The plaintiff class seeks unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants believe there is insurance coverage available for this action. It is not possible to estimate a loss or range of loss related to this matter at this time.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details