Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies As security for performance of certain development obligations, ALP was contingently liable under performance bonds for approximately $48,000. These performance bonds are fully collateralized. In late 2007 it was determined that certain remnant parcels from past developments were still owned by ALP rather than by relevant homeowners associations or public entities. These remnant parcels generally have no value and, to the extent hereafter deeded to third parties, will result in no material proceeds to the Trust. ALP is working with relevant parties on some of these parcels to affect the transfer of these parcels where feasible. However, certain of these parcels carry past-due taxes that include years where they had been assessed on pre-subdivision values that, due to the passage of time and the expiration of local appeals periods, precluded their being deeded over in the normal course. These taxes are non-recourse to ALP. While these parcels are being handled on a case-by-case basis, where ALP is unable to effect a transfer whereby any material accrued taxes are waived by the taxing authority or assumed by the transferee, ALP generally will allow such parcels to be acquired by third parties at tax sale in order to relieve ALP from any future liabilities associated with them. ALP continues to work to transfer or otherwise dispose of the remaining parcels. The cost of completing this process is not expected to be material, however ALP is unable to predict the time period required. ALP accrues legal liabilities when it is probable that the future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are based upon developments to date, management's estimates of the outcome of these matters and its experience in contesting, litigating and settling other matters. Based on evaluation of the Partnership's litigation matters and discussions with internal and external legal counsel, management believes that an adverse outcome on one or more of the matters set forth below, against which no accrual for loss has been made at March 31, 2017 and 2016 unless otherwise noted, is reasonably possible but not probable, and that the outcome with respect to one or more of these matters, if adverse, is reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on the accompanying financial statements of ALP. The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties were named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purported to bring a class action allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs complained, among other things, that the homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection systems. The Arvida defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order certifying the class. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings including trial. The parties and their insurers entered into various agreements in principle to settle this case and the related cases discussed hereafter, some of which agreements have been finalized. On June 22, 2016, the court gave final approval of the settlement of the Rothal class action. No timely appeal was taken from the court’s order approving the settlement and it is now final. Disbursements of Rothal settlement proceeds is taking place. The related agreements that Arvida has with various other parties and their insurers related to the funding of the settlement have been executed. Administration of the settlement is ongoing. The amounts associated with ALP’s share of the settlement are reflected in ALP’s financial statements. On October 31, 2012, the Partnership filed an action entitled ALP Liquidating Trust, et al. v. Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. et al. in the Circuit Court of the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 12-42903 CA-06. The case arose out of and in connection with the Rothal claims against the Partnership and related insurance litigation (“Rothal Claims”). The defendants included Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), the alleged roofing subcontractor for the homes involved in the Rothal action, Trinity Construction Corp. (“Trinity”), the alleged installer of the roofing trusses involved in the Rothal action, and Quality Truss Inc. (“Quality Truss”), the alleged manufacturer of the roofing trusses involved in the Rothal action. In the nine-count complaint for contractual indemnity, common law indemnity and negligence, plaintiffs essentially alleged that in the event they were held liable for defects and damages for the roofs and truss systems in the Rothal action, which defects and damages are denied to exist, plaintiffs were entitled to recover from each damages, attorneys’ fees as provided by contract or applicable law, as the case may be, or such other relief that the Court may deem just and proper. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2014. The case was transferred to the complex litigation division of the court. Waterproofing filed an answer to the amended complaint and Arvida has replied. Trinity filed an answer to the amended complaint and a counterclaim. In Trinity’s counterclaim it seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or defend Arvida in the Rothal action and that it is entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs. Quality Truss has filed an answer to the amended complaint. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. A dismissal order was entered on November 7, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing. On June 23, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled, Investors Insurance Company of America (“Investors Insurance”) v. Waterproofing Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-61408-DMM, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). In the complaint, as amended, an insurer for Waterproofing Systems, Inc. and Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), the alleged roofer of the homes and co-defendant in the Rothal case discussed above sought a declaratory judgment order that it owed no duty of indemnity or defense to Waterproofing for the damages sought in the Rothal complaint. In the Investors Insurance complaint, as amended, the plaintiff declared that ALP has an interest in the plaintiff’s policies that purport to cover Waterproofing and by its complaint sought an order that would attempt to effectively adjudicate ALP’s rights to any coverage benefits under the Investors Insurance policies. The Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and a motion to stay. The motion to dismiss Arvida was granted. The court determined that Investors Insurance had a duty to defend its insured and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice except that the court reserved jurisdiction to determine whether the insurer has a duty to indemnify once the underlying Rothal action concluded. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing. On January 19, 2012, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al., Case No. 2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Complex Litigation Unit. In this case, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), an alleged insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), sought a declaratory judgment against, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action and the Partnership, seeking a declaration of Scottsdale’s rights and obligations under two commercial general liability policies it allegedly issued over the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002. The case was transferred from the complex litigation unit to the trial court handling the Rothal action. The declaration in this case sought to affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal, and the Partnership might have in these policies. On or about August 29, 2012, the Partnership filed an answer, affirmative defenses and a counterclaim seeking, among other things, defense and indemnity in connection with the Rothal action. Scottsdale filed an answer to the Partnership’s counterclaim. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. A dismissal order was entered in November 15, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing. On July 15, 2014, the Partnership and affiliated and associated entities (“Partnership”) filed a two-count complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida entitled Arvida/JMB Partners, et al v. Lexington Insurance Company, Case No. 14-018397 CA 01. This suit was filed against Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) alleging, among other things, that Lexington has failed to timely pay the Partnership’s defense costs for the Rothal litigation. The Partnership alleged that Lexington was under an obligation to pay the Partnership’s defense costs on a timely basis under various insurance policies it wrote covering the roofer in the Rothal litigation and which obligate Lexington to defend and indemnify the Partnership. The Partnership sought damages, pre and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and any further relief the Court deems equitable, just and proper. On September 19, 2014, Lexington filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim to the Partnership’s complaint. In the counterclaim, Lexington sought, among other things, a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Partnership, that its duty to reimburse the Partnership for fees should be shared with the Partnership’s carriers and be more limited in amount and scope. Lexington joined Waterproofing and Zurich in its counterclaim alleged due to their interest in the outcome. Each of them filed a responsive pleading to the Lexington counterclaim. The Partnership filed its reply to the Lexington counterclaim. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. The action was dismissed by an order dated November 7, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing. Other than as described above, the Partnership is not subject to any material legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business of the Partnership. ALP evaluates subsequent events up until the date the consolidated financial statements are issued.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

As security for performance of certain development obligations, ALP was contingently liable under performance bonds for approximately $48,000. These performance bonds are fully collateralized.

In late 2007 it was determined that certain remnant parcels from past developments were still owned by ALP rather than by relevant homeowners associations or public entities. These remnant parcels generally have no value and, to the extent hereafter deeded to third parties, will result in no material proceeds to the Trust. ALP is working with relevant parties on some of these parcels to affect the transfer of these parcels where feasible. However, certain of these parcels carry past-due taxes that include years where they had been assessed on pre-subdivision values that, due to the passage of time and the expiration of local appeals periods, precluded their being deeded over in the normal course. These taxes are non-recourse to ALP. While these parcels are being handled on a case-by-case basis, where ALP is unable to effect a transfer whereby any material accrued taxes are waived by the taxing authority or assumed by the transferee, ALP generally will allow such parcels to be acquired by third parties at tax sale in order to relieve ALP from any future liabilities associated with them. ALP continues to work to transfer or otherwise dispose of the remaining parcels. The cost of completing this process is not expected to be material, however ALP is unable to predict the time period required.

ALP accrues legal liabilities when it is probable that the future costs will be incurred and such costs can be reasonably estimated. Such accruals are based upon developments to date, management's estimates of the outcome of these matters and its experience in contesting, litigating and settling other matters. Based on evaluation of the Partnership's litigation matters and discussions with internal and external legal counsel, management believes that an adverse outcome on one or more of the matters set forth below, against which no accrual for loss has been made at March 31, 2017 and 2016 unless otherwise noted, is reasonably possible but not probable, and that the outcome with respect to one or more of these matters, if adverse, is reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on the accompanying financial statements of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties were named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purported to bring a class action allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs complained, among other things, that the homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection systems. The Arvida defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order certifying the class. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings including trial. The parties and their insurers entered into various agreements in principle to settle this case and the related cases discussed hereafter, some of which agreements have been finalized. On June 22, 2016, the court gave final approval of the settlement of the Rothal class action. No timely appeal was taken from the court’s order approving the settlement and it is now final. Disbursements of Rothal settlement proceeds is taking place. The related agreements that Arvida has with various other parties and their insurers related to the funding of the settlement have been executed. Administration of the settlement is ongoing. The amounts associated with ALP’s share of the settlement are reflected in ALP’s financial statements.

On October 31, 2012, the Partnership filed an action entitled ALP Liquidating Trust, et al. v. Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. et al. in the Circuit Court of the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 12-42903 CA-06. The case arose out of and in connection with the Rothal claims against the Partnership and related insurance litigation (“Rothal Claims”). The defendants included Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), the alleged roofing subcontractor for the homes involved in the Rothal action, Trinity Construction Corp. (“Trinity”), the alleged installer of the roofing trusses involved in the Rothal action, and Quality Truss Inc. (“Quality Truss”), the alleged manufacturer of the roofing trusses involved in the Rothal action. In the nine-count complaint for contractual indemnity, common law indemnity and negligence, plaintiffs essentially alleged that in the event they were held liable for defects and damages for the roofs and truss systems in the Rothal action, which defects and damages are denied to exist, plaintiffs were entitled to recover from each damages, attorneys’ fees as provided by contract or applicable law, as the case may be, or such other relief that the Court may deem just and proper. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2014. The case was transferred to the complex litigation division of the court. Waterproofing filed an answer to the amended complaint and Arvida has replied. Trinity filed an answer to the amended complaint and a counterclaim. In Trinity’s counterclaim it seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or defend Arvida in the Rothal action and that it is entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs. Quality Truss has filed an answer to the amended complaint. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. A dismissal order was entered on November 7, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing.

On June 23, 2011, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled, Investors Insurance Company of America (“Investors Insurance”) v. Waterproofing Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:11-cv-61408-DMM, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). In the complaint, as amended, an insurer for Waterproofing Systems, Inc. and Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), the alleged roofer of the homes and co-defendant in the Rothal case discussed above sought a declaratory judgment order that it owed no duty of indemnity or defense to Waterproofing for the damages sought in the Rothal complaint. In the Investors Insurance complaint, as amended, the plaintiff declared that ALP has an interest in the plaintiff’s policies that purport to cover Waterproofing and by its complaint sought an order that would attempt to effectively adjudicate ALP’s rights to any coverage benefits under the Investors Insurance policies. The Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and a motion to stay. The motion to dismiss Arvida was granted. The court determined that Investors Insurance had a duty to defend its insured and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice except that the court reserved jurisdiction to determine whether the insurer has a duty to indemnify once the underlying Rothal action concluded. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing.

On January 19, 2012, the Partnership was sued in a case entitled, Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Richard Rothal, et al., Case No. 2012-CA-03451, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Complex Litigation Unit. In this case, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), an alleged insurer of Waterproofing Systems of Miami, Inc. (“Waterproofing”), sought a declaratory judgment against, among others, Waterproofing, the class certified in the Rothal action and the Partnership, seeking a declaration of Scottsdale’s rights and obligations under two commercial general liability policies it allegedly issued over the years May 29, 2000 - May 29, 2002. The case was transferred from the complex litigation unit to the trial court handling the Rothal action. The declaration in this case sought to affect the rights that Waterproofing, Rothal, and the Partnership might have in these policies. On or about August 29, 2012, the Partnership filed an answer, affirmative defenses and a counterclaim seeking, among other things, defense and indemnity in connection with the Rothal action. Scottsdale filed an answer to the Partnership’s counterclaim. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. A dismissal order was entered in November 15, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing.

On July 15, 2014, the Partnership and affiliated and associated entities (“Partnership”) filed a two-count complaint for breach of contract and declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Florida entitled Arvida/JMB Partners, et al v. Lexington Insurance Company, Case No. 14-018397 CA 01. This suit was filed against Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) alleging, among other things, that Lexington has failed to timely pay the Partnership’s defense costs for the Rothal litigation. The Partnership alleged that Lexington was under an obligation to pay the Partnership’s defense costs on a timely basis under various insurance policies it wrote covering the roofer in the Rothal litigation and which obligate Lexington to defend and indemnify the Partnership. The Partnership sought damages, pre and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and any further relief the Court deems equitable, just and proper. On September 19, 2014, Lexington filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim to the Partnership’s complaint. In the counterclaim, Lexington sought, among other things, a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Partnership, that its duty to reimburse the Partnership for fees should be shared with the Partnership’s carriers and be more limited in amount and scope. Lexington joined Waterproofing and Zurich in its counterclaim alleged due to their interest in the outcome. Each of them filed a responsive pleading to the Lexington counterclaim. The Partnership filed its reply to the Lexington counterclaim. A mutual release and settlement agreement has been executed providing funding for the settlement of the Rothal lawsuit and dismissal of this action. The action was dismissed by an order dated November 7, 2016. Administration of the Rothal settlement is ongoing.

Other than as described above, the Partnership is not subject to any material legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business of the Partnership. ALP evaluates subsequent events up until the date the consolidated financial statements are issued.

ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST 10-Q