Note 18 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2018
Notes to Financial Statements
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. The significant majority of our litigation matters are related to construction defect claims. Our estimated losses from construction defect litigation matters, if any, are included in our construction defect reserves as discussed in Note 16. 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 storm water 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 a site may vary greatly according to the community site, for example, due to the community, the environmental conditions at or near the site, 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. We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. For example, for a number of years, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been engaged in rulemakings to clarify the scope of federally regulated wetlands, which included a June 2015 rule many affected businesses contend impermissibly expanded the scope of such wetlands that was challenged in court, stayed, and remains in litigation. A proposal was made in June 2017 to formally rescind the June 2015 rule and reinstate the rule scheme previously in place while the agencies initiate a new substantive rulemaking on the issue. A February 2018 rule delays the effective date of the June 2015 rule until February 2020, but was enjoined nationwide in August 2018 by a federal district court in South Carolina in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of environmental advocacy groups (the result of which, according to the EPA, is that the June 2015 rule applies in 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and that the pre- June 2015 regime applies in the rest). The district court’s August 2018 decision is being appealed, and the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are seeking a stay of the decision. It is unclear how these and related developments, including at the state or local level, ultimately may affect the scope of regulated wetlands where we operate. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these developments regarding wetlands, or any other requirements that may take effect 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. 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 tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA showed 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 began 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 again in March 2017 and the Company responded to the information requests. On May 2, 2018 the EPA sent a letter to the Company entity demanding reimbursement for 100% of the EPA’s costs to clean-up the site in the amount of $2.7 million. The Company responded to the EPA’s demand letter on June 15, 2018 setting forth the Company’s defenses and expressing its willingness to enter into settlement negotiations. We believe that we have adequate reserves for this matter. The Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Grandview Plaintiff”) filed a construction defect lawsuit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian North East, Inc. aka and/or dba K. Hovnanian Companies North East, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction II, Inc., K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc., K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, as well as the project architect, the geotechnical engineers and various construction contractors for the project alleging various construction defects, design defects and geotechnical issues totaling approximately $41.3 million. The lawsuit included claims against the geotechnical engineers for differential soil settlement under the building, against the architects for failing to design the correct type of structure allowable under the New Jersey Building Code, and against the Hovnanian-affiliated developer entity (K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC ) alleging that it: ( 1 ) had knowledge of and failed to disclose the improper building classification to unit purchasers and was therefore liable for treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and ( 2 ) breached an express warranty set forth in the Public Offering Statements that the common elements at the building were fit for their intended purpose. The Grandview Plaintiff further alleged that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey II, Inc. were jointly liable for any damages owed by the Hovnanian development entity under a veil piercing theory. After the parties reached a pre-trial settlement on the construction defect issues, trial commenced on April 17, 2017 in Hudson County, New Jersey. The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants resolved the geotechnical claims mid-trial for an amount immaterial to the Company, but the balance of the case continued to be tried before the jury. On June 1, 2017, the jury rendered a verdict against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC on the breach of warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud claims in the total amount of $3 million, which resulted in a total verdict of $9 million against that entity due to statutory trebling, plus a portion of Grandview Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court subsequently awarded $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. The jury also found in favor of Grandview Plaintiff on its veil piercing theory. After the Court denied the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants’ filed post-trial motions, including a motion for contractual indemnification against the project architect, the Court entered final judgment in the amount of approximately $10.4 million on January 12, 2018. On January 24, 2018, the relevant Hovnanian-affiliated defendants appealed all aspects of the verdict against them. On February 16, 2018, the Court entered an order staying execution of the judgment provided that the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants post a bond in the amount of approximately $11.1 million. On March 9, 2018, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed the Court-approved bond. On July 30, 2018, during the pendency of the appeal, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants settled the Grandview Plaintiff's claims for an amount less than the bond, which amount was paid on September 12, 2018. As part of the settlement, all appeals were dismissed other than the appeal of the Court’s denial of the Hovnanian-affiliated defendant’s contractual indemnification claim against the project architect. In 2015, the condominium association of the Four Seasons at Great Notch condominium community (the “Great Notch Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County (the “Court”) alleging various construction defects, design defects, and geotechnical issues relating to the community. The operative complaint (“Complaint”) asserts claims against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC. The Complaint also asserts claims against various other design professionals and contractors. The Great Notch Plaintiff has also filed a motion, which remains pending, to permit it to pursue a claim to pierce the corporate veil of K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC to hold its alleged parent entities liable for any damages awarded against it. To date, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants have reached a partial settlement with the Great Notch Plaintiff as to a portion of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claims against them for an amount immaterial to the Company. On its remaining claims against the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants, the Great Notch Plaintiff recently asserted damages of approximately $119.5 million, which amount is potentially subject to treble damages pursuant to the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On August 17, 2018, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s remaining claims against them, which remains pending. Trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2019. Court ordered mediation sessions have been scheduled for January 2019. The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants intend to defend these claims vigorously.

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. The significant majority of our litigation matters are related to construction defect claims. Our estimated losses from construction defect litigation matters, if any, are included in our construction defect reserves as discussed in Note

16.

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 storm water 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 a site

may

vary greatly according to the community site, for example, due to the community, the environmental conditions at or near the site, 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.

We anticipate that increasingly stringent requirements will be imposed on developers and homebuilders in the future. For example, for a number of years, the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been engaged in rulemakings to clarify the scope of federally regulated wetlands, which included a

June 2015

rule many affected businesses contend impermissibly expanded the scope of such wetlands that was challenged in court, stayed, and remains in litigation. A proposal was made in

June 2017

to formally rescind the

June 2015

rule and reinstate the rule scheme previously in place while the agencies initiate a new substantive rulemaking on the issue. A

February 2018

rule delays the effective date of the

June 2015

rule until

February 2020,

but was enjoined nationwide in

August 2018

by a federal district court in South Carolina in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of environmental advocacy groups (the result of which, according to the EPA, is that the

June 2015

rule applies in

states, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories, and that the pre-

June 2015

regime applies in the rest). The district court’s

August 2018

decision is being appealed, and the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are seeking a stay of the decision. It is unclear how these and related developments, including at the state or local level, ultimately

may

affect the scope of regulated wetlands where we operate. Although we cannot reliably predict the extent of any effect these developments regarding wetlands, or any other requirements that

may

take effect

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.

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 tests on soil samples from properties within the development conducted by the EPA showed 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 began 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 again in

March 2017

and the Company responded to the information requests. On

May 2, 2018

the EPA sent a letter to the Company entity demanding reimbursement for

100%

of the EPA’s costs to clean-up the site in the amount of

$2.7

million. The Company responded to the EPA’s demand letter on

June 15, 2018

setting forth the Company’s defenses and expressing its willingness to enter into settlement negotiations. We believe that we have adequate reserves for this matter.

The Grandview at Riverwalk Port Imperial Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Grandview Plaintiff”) filed a construction defect lawsuit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC, K. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian North East, Inc. aka and/or dba K. Hovnanian Companies North East, Inc., K. Hovnanian Construction II, Inc., K. Hovnanian Cooperative, Inc., K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, as well as the project architect, the geotechnical engineers and various construction contractors for the project alleging various construction defects, design defects and geotechnical issues totaling approximately

$41.3

million. The lawsuit included claims against the geotechnical engineers for differential soil settlement under the building, against the architects for failing to design the correct type of structure allowable under the New Jersey Building Code, and against the Hovnanian-affiliated developer entity (K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC ) alleging that it: (

) had knowledge of and failed to disclose the improper building classification to unit purchasers and was therefore liable for treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and (

) breached an express warranty set forth in the Public Offering Statements that the common elements at the building were fit for their intended purpose. The Grandview Plaintiff further alleged that Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., K. Hovnanian Holdings NJ, LLC, K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Developments of New Jersey II, Inc. were jointly liable for any damages owed by the Hovnanian development entity under a veil piercing theory.

After the parties reached a pre-trial settlement on the construction defect issues, trial commenced on

April 17, 2017

in Hudson County, New Jersey. The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants resolved the geotechnical claims mid-trial for an amount immaterial to the Company, but the balance of the case continued to be tried before the jury. On

June 1, 2017,

the jury rendered a verdict against K. Hovnanian at Port Imperial Urban Renewal II, LLC on the breach of warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud claims in the total amount of

million, which resulted in a total verdict of

million against that entity due to statutory trebling, plus a portion of Grandview Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court subsequently awarded

$1.4

million in attorneys’ fees and costs. The jury also found in favor of Grandview Plaintiff on its veil piercing theory. After the Court denied the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants’ filed post-trial motions, including a motion for contractual indemnification against the project architect, the Court entered final judgment in the amount of approximately

$10.4

million on

January 12, 2018.

January 24, 2018,

the relevant Hovnanian-affiliated defendants appealed all aspects of the verdict against them. On

February 16, 2018,

the Court entered an order staying execution of the judgment provided that the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants post a bond in the amount of approximately

$11.1

million. On

March 9, 2018,

the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed the Court-approved bond. On

July 30, 2018,

during the pendency of the appeal, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants settled the Grandview Plaintiff's claims for an amount less than the bond, which amount was paid on

September 12, 2018.

As part of the settlement, all appeals were dismissed other than the appeal of the Court’s denial of the Hovnanian-affiliated defendant’s contractual indemnification claim against the project architect.

2015,

the condominium association of the Four Seasons at Great Notch condominium community (the “Great Notch Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County (the “Court”) alleging various construction defects, design defects, and geotechnical issues relating to the community. The operative complaint (“Complaint”) asserts claims against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. and several of its affiliates, including K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC, K. Hovnanian Construction Management, Inc., and K. Hovnanian Companies, LLC. The Complaint also asserts claims against various other design professionals and contractors. The Great Notch Plaintiff has also filed a motion, which remains pending, to permit it to pursue a claim to pierce the corporate veil of K. Hovnanian at Great Notch, LLC to hold its alleged parent entities liable for any damages awarded against it. To date, the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants have reached a partial settlement with the Great Notch Plaintiff as to a portion of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claims against them for an amount immaterial to the Company. On its remaining claims against the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants, the Great Notch Plaintiff recently asserted damages of approximately

$119.5

million, which amount is potentially subject to treble damages pursuant to the Great Notch Plaintiff’s claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On

August 17, 2018,

the Hovnanian-affiliated defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of the Great Notch Plaintiff’s remaining claims against them, which remains pending. Trial is currently scheduled for

March 25, 2019.

Court ordered mediation sessions have been scheduled for

January 2019.

The Hovnanian-affiliated defendants intend to defend these claims vigorously.