Regulatory Requirements	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Brokers and Dealers [Abstract]
Regulatory Requirements	Note 22 — Regulatory Requirements Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the SEC and various state agencies that license and conduct examinations of our servicing and lending activities. In addition, we operate under a number of regulatory settlements that subject us to ongoing reporting and other obligations. From time to time, we also receive requests (including requests in the form of subpoenas and civil investigative demands) from federal, state and local agencies for records, documents and information relating to our servicing and lending activities. The GSEs (and their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA)), Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, various investors, non-Agency securitization trustees and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits. In the current regulatory environment, we have faced and expect to continue to face heightened regulatory and public scrutiny as an organization as well as stricter and more comprehensive regulation of the entire mortgage sector. We continue to work diligently to assess and understand the implications of the regulatory environment in which we operate and to meet the requirements of the changing environment in which we operate. We devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance, while, at the same time, striving to meet the needs and expectations of our customers, clients and other stakeholders. Our failure to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and licensing requirements could lead to (i) administrative fines and penalties and litigation, (ii) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (iii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions (iv) civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) damage to our reputation, (vii) inability to raise capital or otherwise fund our operations and (viii) inability to execute on our business strategy. In addition to amounts paid to resolve regulatory matters, we could incur costs to comply with the terms of such resolutions, including, but not limited to, the costs of audits, reviews, and third-party firms to monitor our compliance with such resolutions. We have recognized $177.5 million in such third-party monitoring costs from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 in connection with the 2013 Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement, our 2014 settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) and our 2015 settlement with the California Department of Business Oversight (CA DBO). We must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection and other laws and regulations, including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing and foreclosure laws, individual state and local laws relating to registration of vacant or foreclosed properties, and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These laws and regulations apply to many facets of our business, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about our customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of, and interest payments on, escrow balances and escrow payment features and fees assessed on borrowers, and they mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and do change as laws and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced, including through CFPB interpretive bulletins and other regulatory pronouncements. In addition, the actions of legislative bodies and regulatory agencies relating to a particular matter or business practice may or may not be coordinated or consistent. As a result, ensuring ongoing compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements can be challenging. The recent trend among federal, state and local legislative bodies and regulatory agencies as well as state attorneys general has been toward increasing laws, regulations, investigative proceedings and enforcement actions with regard to residential real estate lenders and servicers. New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues. Accordingly, they could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Ocwen has various subsidiaries, including OLS, Homeward and Liberty, that are licensed to originate and/or service forward and reverse mortgage loans in those jurisdictions in which they operate and which require licensing. Our licensed entities are required to renew their licenses, typically on an annual basis, and to do so they must satisfy the license renewal requirements of each jurisdiction, which generally include financial requirements such as providing audited financial statements and satisfying minimum net worth requirements and non-financial requirements such as satisfactory completion of examinations relating to the licensee’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Failure to satisfy any of the requirements to which our licensed entities are subject could result in a variety of regulatory actions ranging from a fine, a directive requiring a certain step to be taken, a suspension or, ultimately, a revocation of a license, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition. The minimum net worth requirements to which our licensed entities are subject are unique to each state and type of license. We believe our licensed entities were in compliance with all of their minimum net worth requirements at December 31, 2017. OLS, Homeward and Liberty are also subject to seller/servicer obligations under agreements with one or more of the GSEs, HUD, FHA, VA and Ginnie Mae. These seller/servicer obligations contain financial requirements, including capital requirements related to tangible net worth, as defined by the applicable agency, an obligation to provide audited consolidated financial statements within 90 days of the applicable entity’s fiscal year end as well as extensive requirements regarding servicing, selling and other matters. To the extent that these requirements are not met or waived, the applicable agency may, at its option, utilize a variety of remedies including requirements to provide certain information or take actions at the direction of the applicable agency, requirements to deposit funds as security for our obligations, sanctions, suspension or even termination of approved seller/servicer status, which would prohibit future originations or securitizations of forward or reverse mortgage loans or servicing for the applicable agency. Any of these actions could have a material adverse impact on us. To date, none of these counterparties has communicated any material sanction, suspension or prohibition in connection with our seller/servicer obligations. See Note 24 — Contingencies for additional information relating to our recent interactions with Ginnie Mae as a result of the state regulatory actions discussed in that note. We believe we were in compliance with applicable net worth requirements at December 31, 2017. Our non-Agency servicing agreements also contain requirements regarding servicing practices and other matters, and a failure to comply with these requirements could have a material adverse impact on our business. The most restrictive of the various net worth requirements referenced above is based on the total assets of OLS, and the required net worth was $283.0 million at December 31, 2017. There are a number of foreign laws and regulations that are applicable to our operations outside of the U.S., including laws and regulations that govern licensing, employment, safety, taxes and insurance and laws and regulations that govern the creation, continuation and the winding up of companies as well as the relationships between shareholders, our corporate entities, the public and the government in these countries. Non-compliance with these laws and regulations could result in adverse actions against us, including (i) restrictions on our operations in these countries, (ii) fines, penalties or sanctions or (iii) reputational damage. During 2017, we made progress addressing the legacy regulatory matters discussed below. However, we still have significant work to do in order to resolve regulatory matters impacting Ocwen, including those discussed in Note 24 — Contingencies. New York Department of Financial Services. In December 2014, we entered into a consent order (the 2014 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS as a result of an investigation relating to Ocwen’s servicing of residential mortgages. The 2014 NY Consent Order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions including the appointment of a third-party operations monitor (NY Operations Monitor) to monitor various aspects of our operations and restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs that effectively prohibit any such future acquisitions until we have satisfied certain specified conditions. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the NY Operations Monitor, and those costs were substantial. On March 27, 2017, we entered into a consent order (the 2017 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS that provided for (1) the termination of the engagement of the NY Operations Monitor on April 14, 2017, (2) a regulatory examination of our servicing business, following which the NY DFS would make a determination on whether the restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs contained in the 2014 NY Consent Order should be eased and (3) certain reporting and other obligations, including in connection with matters identified in a final report by the NY Operations Monitor. In addition, the 2017 NY Consent Order provides that if the NY DFS concludes that we have materially failed to comply with our obligations under the order or otherwise finds that our servicing operations are materially deficient, the NY DFS may, among other things, and, in addition to its general authority to take regulatory action against us, require us to retain an independent consultant to review and issue recommendations on our servicing operations. The NY Operations Monitor delivered its final report in April 2017 when its engagement terminated. The final report contained certain recommended operational enhancements to which we have responded. Under the 2017 NY Consent Order, we are required to update the NY DFS quarterly on our implementation of the enhancements that we and the NY DFS agreed should be made. We made what we believe to be our final required report to the NY DFS in December 2017. Our updates to date show that all agreed upon enhancements are being implemented. California Department of Business Oversight. In January 2015, OLS entered into a consent order (the 2015 CA Consent Order) with the CA DBO relating to our alleged failure to produce certain information and documents during a routine licensing examination. The order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including the appointment of an independent third-party auditor (the CA Auditor) to assess OLS’ compliance with laws and regulations impacting California borrowers and a prohibition on acquiring any additional MSRs for loans secured in California. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the CA Auditor, and those costs were substantial. On February 17, 2017, OLS and two other subsidiaries, Ocwen Business Solutions, Inc. (OBS) and OFSPL, reached an agreement, in three consent orders (collectively, the 2017 CA Consent Order), with the CA DBO that terminated the 2015 CA Consent Order and resolved open matters between the CA DBO and OLS, OBS and OFSPL, including certain matters relating to OLS’ servicing practices and the licensed activities of OBS and OFSPL. We paid $25.4 million to the CA DBO in borrower restitution, costs, fees and penalties in connection with the 2017 CA Consent Order. The 2017 CA Consent Order does not involve any admission of wrongdoing by OLS, OBS or OFSPL. Additionally, we have certain reporting and other obligations under the 2017 CA Consent Order. We believe that we have completed those obligations of the 2017 CA Consent Order that have already come due, and we have so notified the CA DBO. If the CA DBO were to allege that we failed to comply with these obligations or otherwise were in breach of applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, it could take regulatory action against us. Ocwen 2013 National Mortgage Settlement. In December 2013, we entered into a settlement with the CFPB and various state attorneys general and other state agencies that regulate the mortgage servicing industry relating to various allegations regarding deficient mortgage servicing practices (the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement). The settlement contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including quarterly testing on various metrics relating to servicing standards agreed under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. In September 2017, Ocwen reached an agreement in principle with the Monitoring Committee established under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement relating to a previously disclosed potential violation of one of the tested metrics during the first quarter of 2017. To resolve the matter and without agreeing with the Monitoring Committee’s allegations, Ocwen agreed to pay $1.0 million and to provide notices to certain borrowers with active lender placed insurance policies. On September 26, 2017, the court overseeing the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement issued an order approving the agreement in principle. The parties reached this agreement in principle following the filing of the final report of the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. With this final report, the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight has concluded all monitoring and testing activities under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. Separately, Ocwen is finalizing an agreement regarding a 2016 letter agreement it entered with certain state signatories to the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement (the State Government Parties). Per the terms of the 2016 letter agreement, the parties agreed to certain timelines by which Ocwen would implement corrective action plans and return to metric testing. Such timelines were not established previously in the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. The State Government Parties alleged that Ocwen had failed to meet certain of these timeframes, and asserted that Ocwen was subject to monetary penalties pursuant to the terms of the letter agreement. Although Ocwen denies these allegations, to resolve the dispute, Ocwen is finalizing an agreement that will include a payment to the State Government Parties. Such payment is not expected to be material to Ocwen’s overall financial condition. If the agreement is not finalized, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. The funds paid relating to the resolution of these matters are included in the $174.9 million referred to in Note 24 — Contingencies relating to amounts paid in 2017 in connection with legal and regulatory matters.

Note 22 — Regulatory Requirements

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the SEC and various state agencies that license and conduct examinations of our servicing and lending activities. In addition, we operate under a number of regulatory settlements that subject us to ongoing reporting and other obligations. From time to time, we also receive requests (including requests in the form of subpoenas and civil investigative demands) from federal, state and local agencies for records, documents and information relating to our servicing and lending activities. The GSEs (and their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA)), Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, various investors, non-Agency securitization trustees and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits.

In the current regulatory environment, we have faced and expect to continue to face heightened regulatory and public scrutiny as an organization as well as stricter and more comprehensive regulation of the entire mortgage sector. We continue to work diligently to assess and understand the implications of the regulatory environment in which we operate and to meet the requirements of the changing environment in which we operate. We devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance, while, at the same time, striving to meet the needs and expectations of our customers, clients and other stakeholders. Our failure to comply with applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and licensing requirements could lead to (i) administrative fines and penalties and litigation, (ii) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (iii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions (iv) civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) damage to our reputation, (vii) inability to raise capital or otherwise fund our operations and (viii) inability to execute on our business strategy. In addition to amounts paid to resolve regulatory matters, we could incur costs to comply with the terms of such resolutions, including, but not limited to, the costs of audits, reviews, and third-party firms to monitor our compliance with such resolutions. We have recognized $177.5 million in such third-party monitoring costs from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 in connection with the 2013 Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement, our 2014 settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) and our 2015 settlement with the California Department of Business Oversight (CA DBO).

We must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection and other laws and regulations, including, among others, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing and foreclosure laws, individual state and local laws relating to registration of vacant or foreclosed properties, and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These laws and regulations apply to many facets of our business, including loan origination, default servicing and collections, use of credit reports, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about our customers, foreclosure and claims handling, investment of, and interest payments on, escrow balances and escrow payment features and fees assessed on borrowers, and they mandate certain disclosures and notices to borrowers. These requirements can and do change as laws and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced, including through CFPB interpretive bulletins and other regulatory pronouncements. In addition, the actions of legislative bodies and regulatory agencies relating to a particular matter or business practice may or may not be coordinated or consistent. As a result, ensuring ongoing compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements can be challenging. The recent trend among federal, state and local legislative bodies and regulatory agencies as well as state attorneys general has been toward increasing laws, regulations, investigative proceedings and enforcement actions with regard to residential real estate lenders and servicers. New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues. Accordingly, they could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Ocwen has various subsidiaries, including OLS, Homeward and Liberty, that are licensed to originate and/or service forward and reverse mortgage loans in those jurisdictions in which they operate and which require licensing. Our licensed entities are required to renew their licenses, typically on an annual basis, and to do so they must satisfy the license renewal requirements of each jurisdiction, which generally include financial requirements such as providing audited financial statements and satisfying minimum net worth requirements and non-financial requirements such as satisfactory completion of examinations relating to the licensee’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Failure to satisfy any of the requirements to which our licensed entities are subject could result in a variety of regulatory actions ranging from a fine, a directive requiring a certain step to be taken, a suspension or, ultimately, a revocation of a license, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, results of operations and financial condition. The minimum net worth requirements to which our licensed entities are subject are unique to each state and type of license. We believe our licensed entities were in compliance with all of their minimum net worth requirements at December 31, 2017.

OLS, Homeward and Liberty are also subject to seller/servicer obligations under agreements with one or more of the GSEs, HUD, FHA, VA and Ginnie Mae. These seller/servicer obligations contain financial requirements, including capital requirements related to tangible net worth, as defined by the applicable agency, an obligation to provide audited consolidated financial statements within 90 days of the applicable entity’s fiscal year end as well as extensive requirements regarding servicing, selling and other matters. To the extent that these requirements are not met or waived, the applicable agency may, at its option, utilize a variety of remedies including requirements to provide certain information or take actions at the direction of the applicable agency, requirements to deposit funds as security for our obligations, sanctions, suspension or even termination of approved seller/servicer status, which would prohibit future originations or securitizations of forward or reverse mortgage loans or servicing for the applicable agency. Any of these actions could have a material adverse impact on us. To date, none of these counterparties has communicated any material sanction, suspension or prohibition in connection with our seller/servicer obligations. See Note 24 — Contingencies for additional information relating to our recent interactions with Ginnie Mae as a result of the state regulatory actions discussed in that note. We believe we were in compliance with applicable net worth requirements at December 31, 2017. Our non-Agency servicing agreements also contain requirements regarding servicing practices and other matters, and a failure to comply with these requirements could have a material adverse impact on our business.

The most restrictive of the various net worth requirements referenced above is based on the total assets of OLS, and the required net worth was $283.0 million at December 31, 2017.

There are a number of foreign laws and regulations that are applicable to our operations outside of the U.S., including laws and regulations that govern licensing, employment, safety, taxes and insurance and laws and regulations that govern the creation, continuation and the winding up of companies as well as the relationships between shareholders, our corporate entities, the public and the government in these countries. Non-compliance with these laws and regulations could result in adverse actions against us, including (i) restrictions on our operations in these countries, (ii) fines, penalties or sanctions or (iii) reputational damage.

During 2017, we made progress addressing the legacy regulatory matters discussed below. However, we still have significant work to do in order to resolve regulatory matters impacting Ocwen, including those discussed in Note 24 — Contingencies.

New York Department of Financial Services. In December 2014, we entered into a consent order (the 2014 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS as a result of an investigation relating to Ocwen’s servicing of residential mortgages. The 2014 NY Consent Order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions including the appointment of a third-party operations monitor (NY Operations Monitor) to monitor various aspects of our operations and restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs that effectively prohibit any such future acquisitions until we have satisfied certain specified conditions. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the NY Operations Monitor, and those costs were substantial.

On March 27, 2017, we entered into a consent order (the 2017 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS that provided for (1) the termination of the engagement of the NY Operations Monitor on April 14, 2017, (2) a regulatory examination of our servicing business, following which the NY DFS would make a determination on whether the restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs contained in the 2014 NY Consent Order should be eased and (3) certain reporting and other obligations, including in connection with matters identified in a final report by the NY Operations Monitor. In addition, the 2017 NY Consent Order provides that if the NY DFS concludes that we have materially failed to comply with our obligations under the order or otherwise finds that our servicing operations are materially deficient, the NY DFS may, among other things, and, in addition to its general authority to take regulatory action against us, require us to retain an independent consultant to review and issue recommendations on our servicing operations.

The NY Operations Monitor delivered its final report in April 2017 when its engagement terminated. The final report contained certain recommended operational enhancements to which we have responded. Under the 2017 NY Consent Order, we are required to update the NY DFS quarterly on our implementation of the enhancements that we and the NY DFS agreed should be made. We made what we believe to be our final required report to the NY DFS in December 2017. Our updates to date show that all agreed upon enhancements are being implemented.

California Department of Business Oversight. In January 2015, OLS entered into a consent order (the 2015 CA Consent Order) with the CA DBO relating to our alleged failure to produce certain information and documents during a routine licensing examination. The order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including the appointment of an independent third-party auditor (the CA Auditor) to assess OLS’ compliance with laws and regulations impacting California borrowers and a prohibition on acquiring any additional MSRs for loans secured in California. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the CA Auditor, and those costs were substantial.

On February 17, 2017, OLS and two other subsidiaries, Ocwen Business Solutions, Inc. (OBS) and OFSPL, reached an agreement, in three consent orders (collectively, the 2017 CA Consent Order), with the CA DBO that terminated the 2015 CA Consent Order and resolved open matters between the CA DBO and OLS, OBS and OFSPL, including certain matters relating to OLS’ servicing practices and the licensed activities of OBS and OFSPL. We paid $25.4 million to the CA DBO in borrower restitution, costs, fees and penalties in connection with the 2017 CA Consent Order. The 2017 CA Consent Order does not involve any admission of wrongdoing by OLS, OBS or OFSPL. Additionally, we have certain reporting and other obligations under the 2017 CA Consent Order. We believe that we have completed those obligations of the 2017 CA Consent Order that have already come due, and we have so notified the CA DBO. If the CA DBO were to allege that we failed to comply with these obligations or otherwise were in breach of applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, it could take regulatory action against us.

Ocwen 2013 National Mortgage Settlement. In December 2013, we entered into a settlement with the CFPB and various state attorneys general and other state agencies that regulate the mortgage servicing industry relating to various allegations regarding deficient mortgage servicing practices (the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement). The settlement contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including quarterly testing on various metrics relating to servicing standards agreed under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement.

In September 2017, Ocwen reached an agreement in principle with the Monitoring Committee established under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement relating to a previously disclosed potential violation of one of the tested metrics during the first quarter of 2017. To resolve the matter and without agreeing with the Monitoring Committee’s allegations, Ocwen agreed to pay $1.0 million and to provide notices to certain borrowers with active lender placed insurance policies. On September 26, 2017, the court overseeing the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement issued an order approving the agreement in principle. The parties reached this agreement in principle following the filing of the final report of the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. With this final report, the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight has concluded all monitoring and testing activities under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement.

Separately, Ocwen is finalizing an agreement regarding a 2016 letter agreement it entered with certain state signatories to the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement (the State Government Parties). Per the terms of the 2016 letter agreement, the parties agreed to certain timelines by which Ocwen would implement corrective action plans and return to metric testing. Such timelines were not established previously in the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. The State Government Parties alleged that Ocwen had failed to meet certain of these timeframes, and asserted that Ocwen was subject to monetary penalties pursuant to the terms of the letter agreement. Although Ocwen denies these allegations, to resolve the dispute, Ocwen is finalizing an agreement that will include a payment to the State Government Parties. Such payment is not expected to be material to Ocwen’s overall financial condition. If the agreement is not finalized, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

The funds paid relating to the resolution of these matters are included in the $174.9 million referred to in Note 24 — Contingencies relating to amounts paid in 2017 in connection with legal and regulatory matters.