Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Restricted Cash—Under certain management and debt agreements for our hotel properties existing at September 30, 2017, escrow payments are required for insurance, real estate taxes and debt service. In addition, for certain properties based on the terms of the underlying debt and management agreements, we escrow 4% to 5% of gross revenues for capital improvements. Management Fees—Under management agreements for our hotel properties existing at September 30, 2017, we pay a) monthly property management fees equal to the greater of $10,000 (CPI adjusted since 2003) or 3% of gross revenues, or in some cases 3% to 7% of gross revenues, as well as annual incentive management fees, if applicable, b) project management fees of up to 4% of project costs, c) market service fees including purchasing, design and construction management not to exceed 16.5% of project management budget cumulatively, including project management fees, and d) other general fees at current market rates as approved by our independent directors, if required. These management agreements expire from December 2019 through December 2065, with renewal options. If we terminate a management agreement prior to its expiration, we may be liable for estimated management fees through the remaining term, liquidated damages or, in certain circumstances, we may substitute a new management agreement. Income Taxes—We and our subsidiaries file income tax returns in the federal jurisdiction and various states. Tax years 2013 through 2016 remain subject to potential examination by certain federal and state taxing authorities. Litigation—Jesse Small v. Monty J. Bennett, et al., Case No. 24-C-16006020 (Md. Cir. Ct.) On November 16, 2016, Jesse Small, a purported shareholder of Ashford Prime, commenced a derivative action in Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and declaratory relief against the members of the Ashford Prime board of directors, David Brooks (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), Ashford Inc. and Ashford LLC. Ashford Prime is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Ashford Prime by negotiating and approving the termination fee provision set forth in Ashford Prime’s advisory agreement with Ashford LLC, that Ashford Inc. and Ashford LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duty breaches, and that the Ashford Prime board of directors committed corporate waste in connection with Ashford Prime’s purchase of 175,000 shares of Ashford Inc. common stock. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the termination fee provision is unenforceable. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff notified the court that the plaintiff intends to dismiss the action as moot and seek a mootness fee and costs. On July 25, 2017, the action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. A hearing on the plaintiff’s fee petition was held on October 25, 2017. A ruling from the court is currently pending. It is not possible to accurately predict the outcome of this remaining action or the range of any potential loss. We are engaged in other various legal proceedings which have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible and to probable. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and if we fail to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses exceed our current estimates of the range of potential losses, our consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods.

Commitments and Contingencies

Restricted Cash—Under certain management and debt agreements for our hotel properties existing at September 30, 2017, escrow payments are required for insurance, real estate taxes and debt service. In addition, for certain properties based on the terms of the underlying debt and management agreements, we escrow 4% to 5% of gross revenues for capital improvements.

Management Fees—Under management agreements for our hotel properties existing at September 30, 2017, we pay a) monthly property management fees equal to the greater of $10,000 (CPI adjusted since 2003) or 3% of gross revenues, or in some cases 3% to 7% of gross revenues, as well as annual incentive management fees, if applicable, b) project management fees of up to 4% of project costs, c) market service fees including purchasing, design and construction management not to exceed 16.5% of project management budget cumulatively, including project management fees, and d) other general fees at current market rates as approved by our independent directors, if required. These management agreements expire from December 2019 through December 2065, with renewal options. If we terminate a management agreement prior to its expiration, we may be liable for estimated management fees through the remaining term, liquidated damages or, in certain circumstances, we may substitute a new management agreement.

Income Taxes—We and our subsidiaries file income tax returns in the federal jurisdiction and various states. Tax years 2013 through 2016 remain subject to potential examination by certain federal and state taxing authorities.

Litigation—Jesse Small v. Monty J. Bennett, et al., Case No. 24-C-16006020 (Md. Cir. Ct.) On November 16, 2016, Jesse Small, a purported shareholder of Ashford Prime, commenced a derivative action in Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, and declaratory relief against the members of the Ashford Prime board of directors, David Brooks (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), Ashford Inc. and Ashford LLC. Ashford Prime is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Ashford Prime by negotiating and approving the termination fee provision set forth in Ashford Prime’s advisory agreement with Ashford LLC, that Ashford Inc. and Ashford LLC aided and abetted the Individual Defendants’ fiduciary duty breaches, and that the Ashford Prime board of directors committed corporate waste in connection with Ashford Prime’s purchase of 175,000 shares of Ashford Inc. common stock. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the termination fee provision is unenforceable. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on March 24, 2017. On June 6, 2017, the plaintiff notified the court that the plaintiff intends to dismiss the action as moot and seek a mootness fee and costs. On July 25, 2017, the action was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. A hearing on the plaintiff’s fee petition was held on October 25, 2017. A ruling from the court is currently pending. It is not possible to accurately predict the outcome of this remaining action or the range of any potential loss.

We are engaged in other various legal proceedings which have arisen but have not been fully adjudicated. The likelihood of loss from these legal proceedings, based on definitions within contingency accounting literature, ranges from remote to reasonably possible and to probable. Based on estimates of the range of potential losses associated with these matters, management does not believe the ultimate resolution of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, the final results of legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty and if we fail to prevail in one or more of these legal matters, and the associated realized losses exceed our current estimates of the range of potential losses, our consolidated financial position or results of operations could be materially adversely affected in future periods.