Note 18 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	18. 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, results of operations or cash flows, and we are subject to extensive and complex laws and regulations that affect the development of land and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These laws and 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, including those regulating the emission or discharge of materials into the environment, the management of stormwater runoff at construction sites, the handling, use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances, impacts to wetlands and other sensitive environments, and the remediation of contamination at properties that we have owned or developed or currently own or are developing (“environmental laws”). 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. In addition, noncompliance with these laws and regulations could result in fines and penalties, obligations to remediate, permit revocations or other sanctions; and contamination or other environmental conditions at or in the vicinity of our developments may result in claims against us for personal injury, property damage or other losses. In March 2013, we received a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (“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 ceased operations many years before the Company entity involved acquired the properties in the area and carried out the re-development 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 will clean up the site, and that the EPA is proposing that we fund and/or contribute towards the cleanup of the 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. The EPA requested additional information in April 2014 and the Company has responded to its information request. We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these requirements may have on us, 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 was also involved in the following litigation: Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Company Defendants”) were 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. The plaintiff class was seeking unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants, the Company Defendants’ insurance carriers and the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May 15, 2014 in which the plaintiff class was to receive a payment of $21 million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the settlement being funded by the Company Defendants’ insurance carriers. The Company had previously reserved for its share of the settlement. The Superior Court approved the settlement agreement on December 23, 2014, and the judgment became final on February 20, 2015, when no appeal was taken. The settlement amount was paid in full and the class action matter is now concluded. The Company Defendants’ separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by the class action is ongoing. The Company had been involved in a dispute with XL, its insurance carrier for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 through the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010, regarding coverage issues pertaining to the fiscal year 2006 insurance policy. Specifically, XL maintained that the Company had not satisfied its aggregate retention of $21 million for fiscal 2006 and therefore the Company’s submitted claims in excess of the aggregate retention for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 were not reimbursable by XL under the policy terms. To date, the Company has not met the aggregate retention for any of the other policy years. The Company provided XL with detailed information to support its position that the fiscal year 2006 aggregate retention has been exceeded by more than $30 million; however, XL disputed the Company’s interpretation of certain definitions within the policy and therefore was denying coverage. Because the parties were not successful in discussions to resolve the matter, the Company filed a Notice of Claim on November 26, 2014 with an arbitration panel, appointed by the Company and XL, in London to begin arbitration proceedings. In mid-2015, discovery commenced for both parties with documentation exchanged and motions heard with the arbitration panel. In June 2015, XL and the Company agreed to a two day mediation, which occurred in early September 2015 in London. As a consequence of the mediation, an agreement was reached under which XL made a payment in October 2015 to the Company to fully settle coverage for its 2006 and 2007 insurance policy years. The Company is therefore self-insured for those policy years (policy years 2008 through 2010 remain in effect). There was no financial impact from the settlement. For an additional discussion of construction defect reserves, see Note 16.

Note 18 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2015

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

18. 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, results of operations or cash flows, and we are subject to extensive and complex laws and regulations that affect the development of land and home building, sales and customer financing processes, including zoning, density, building standards and mortgage financing. These laws and 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, including those regulating the emission or discharge of materials into the environment, the management of stormwater runoff at construction sites, the handling, use, storage and disposal of hazardous substances, impacts to wetlands and other sensitive environments, and the remediation of contamination at properties that we have owned or developed or currently own or are developing (“environmental laws”). 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. In addition, noncompliance with these laws and regulations could result in fines and penalties, obligations to remediate, permit revocations or other sanctions; and contamination or other environmental conditions at or in the vicinity of our developments may result in claims against us for personal injury, property damage or other losses.

In March 2013, we received a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (“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 ceased operations many years before the Company entity involved acquired the properties in the area and carried out the re-development 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 will clean up the site, and that the EPA is proposing that we fund and/or contribute towards the cleanup of the 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. The EPA requested additional information in April 2014 and the Company has responded to its information request.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these requirements may have on us, 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 was also involved in the following litigation: Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Company Defendants”) were 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. The plaintiff class was seeking unspecified damages as well as treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company Defendants, the Company Defendants’ insurance carriers and the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May 15, 2014 in which the plaintiff class was to receive a payment of $21 million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the settlement being funded by the Company Defendants’ insurance carriers. The Company had previously reserved for its share of the settlement. The Superior Court approved the settlement agreement on December 23, 2014, and the judgment became final on February 20, 2015, when no appeal was taken. The settlement amount was paid in full and the class action matter is now concluded. The Company Defendants’ separate action seeking indemnification against the various manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by the class action is ongoing.

The Company had been involved in a dispute with XL, its insurance carrier for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 through the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010, regarding coverage issues pertaining to the fiscal year 2006 insurance policy. Specifically, XL maintained that the Company had not satisfied its aggregate retention of $21 million for fiscal 2006 and therefore the Company’s submitted claims in excess of the aggregate retention for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 were not reimbursable by XL under the policy terms. To date, the Company has not met the aggregate retention for any of the other policy years. The Company provided XL with detailed information to support its position that the fiscal year 2006 aggregate retention has been exceeded by more than $30 million; however, XL disputed the Company’s interpretation of certain definitions within the policy and therefore was denying coverage. Because the parties were not successful in discussions to resolve the matter, the Company filed a Notice of Claim on November 26, 2014 with an arbitration panel, appointed by the Company and XL, in London to begin arbitration proceedings. In mid-2015, discovery commenced for both parties with documentation exchanged and motions heard with the arbitration panel. In June 2015, XL and the Company agreed to a two day mediation, which occurred in early September 2015 in London. As a consequence of the mediation, an agreement was reached under which XL made a payment in October 2015 to the Company to fully settle coverage for its 2006 and 2007 insurance policy years. The Company is therefore self-insured for those policy years (policy years 2008 through 2010 remain in effect). There was no financial impact from the settlement. For an additional discussion of construction defect reserves, see Note 16.