Our Rialto segment is a new reportable segment. Rialto’s objective is to generate superior, risk-adjusted returns by focusing on commercial and residential real estate opportunities arising from dislocation in the United States real estate markets and the eventual restructure and recapitalization of those markets. Rialto expects to be able to deliver these returns through its abilities to source, underwrite, price, manage and ultimately monetize real estate assets, as well as by providing similar services to others in markets across the country.

For financial information about our Homebuilding, Lennar Financial Services and Rialto operations, you should review Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which is Item 7 of this Report, and our consolidated financial statements and the notes to our consolidated financial statements, which are included in Item 8 of this Report.

Form 10-K/A Brief History of Our Company

We are a national homebuilder that operates in various states with deliveries of 10,955 new homes in 2010. Our company was founded as a local Miami homebuilder in 1954. We completed our initial public offering in 1971, and listed our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange in 1972. During the 1980s and 1990s, we entered and expanded operations in some of our current major homebuilding markets including California, Florida and Texas through both organic growth and acquisitions such as Pacific Greystone Corporation in 1997, amongst others. In 1997, we completed the spin-off of our commercial real estate business to LNR Property Corporation. In 2000, we acquired U.S. Home Corporation, which expanded our operations into New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado and strengthened our position in other states. From 2002 through 2005, we acquired several regional homebuilders, which brought us into new markets and strengthened our position in several existing markets. During 2010, we made several investments through our Rialto segment in distressed real estate assets to take advantage of opportunities arising from dislocation in the United States real estate market.

Recent Business Developments

Overview

During 2010, we continued to see a housing market that was trying to stabilize. As expected, this stabilization process was impacted by the expiration of the Federal homebuyer tax credit at the end of April, which resulted in a decline in the housing market sales pace. High unemployment, foreclosures, tight lending standards and low consumer confidence have continued to present challenges for the housing market.

Despite challenges in the housing market, we returned to profitability in 2010, ending the year with net earnings of $95.3 million, or $0.51 per diluted share, compared to a net loss of $417.1 million, or $2.45 per diluted share, for the year ended November 30, 2009. We also ended 2010 with $1.2 billion in Lennar Homebuilding cash and cash equivalents. We extended our debt maturities by issuing $250 million of 6.95% senior notes maturing in 2018, $276.5 million of 2.00% convertible senior notes and $446 million of 2.75% convertible senior notes, both maturing in 2020. In addition, during the year we repurchased and retired $624.9 million of senior notes and other debt. We continued to reduce the number of Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated joint ventures in which we have investments to 42 at the end of 2010 from 61 at the end of 2009 and our maximum recourse debt exposure related to those investments was reduced to $173 million at the end of 2010 from $288 million at the end of 2009.

In 2010, we continued focusing on refining our product offering, reducing the number of floor plans and targeting first time and value oriented homebuyers. Our more efficient product offerings have significantly reduced our construction costs and allowed us to meet our customers’ demands. Our intense focus on construction costs, product re-engineering and reduced selling, general and administrative expenses, combined with reduced sales incentives, contributed to improved gross and operating margins year over year.

As demand in some of our markets showed signs of stabilization and our balance sheet strengthened, we continued to contract for new potentially high-margin communities to improve our profitability. These strategic land purchases utilize conservative underwriting standards and began generating high returns as we started delivering those homes in the second half of 2010.

During 2010, our Lennar Financial Services segment had operating earnings of $31.3 million, compared to $36.0 million in the same period last year. The decrease in operating earnings was primarily due to decreased volume in the segment’s mortgage and title operations.

In December 2009, Rialto became a sub-advisor to Alliance Bernstein L.P. (“AB”) with regard to a fund formed under the Federal government’s Public-Private Investment Program (“PPIP”(the “Amendment”) to purchase real estate related securities from banks and other financial institutions. Rialto receives management fees for sub-advisory services. We committed to invest $75 million of the total equity commitments of approximately $1.2 billion made by private investors in this fund, and the U.S. Treasury has committed to a matching amount of approximately $1.2 billion of equity in the fund, as well as agreed to extend up to approximately $2.3 billion of debt financing. During the year ended November 30, 2010, we invested $63.8 million in the AB PPIP fund. As of November 30, 2010, the carrying value of our investment in the AB PPIP fund was $77.3 million.

During 2010, we also invested in several distressed real estate opportunities through our Rialto segment. In February 2010, our Rialto segment acquired indirectly 40% managing member equity interests in two limited liability companies (“LLCs”), in partnership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), for approximately $243 million (net of transaction costs and a $22 million working capital reserve). The LLCs hold performing and non-performing loans formerly owned by 22 failed financial institutions. The two portfolios originally consisted of more than 5,500 distressed residential and commercial real estate loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of approximately $3 billion and an initial fair value of approximately $1.2 billion. The FDIC retained a 60% equity interest in the LLCs and provided $626.9 million of notes with 0% interest, which are non-recourse to us.

In September 2010, Rialto completed the acquisitions of over $700 million of distressed real estate assets, in separate transactions, from three financial institutions. The combined portfolios included approximately 400 loans with a total aggregate unpaid principal balance of over $500 million and over 300 real estate owned (“REO”) properties with an original appraised value of approximately $200 million. We paid $310 million for the distressed real estate assets of which $125 million was financed through a 5-year senior unsecured note provided by one of the selling institutions.

In November 2010, Rialto completed its first closing of a real estate investment fund (the “Fund”) with initial equity commitments of $300 million (including $75 million committed by us). The Fund’s objective during its three-year investment period is to invest in distressed real estate assets and other related investments that fit within the Fund’s investment parameters.

Homebuilding Operations

Overview

We primarily sell single-family attached and detached homes in communities targeted to first-time, move-up and active adult homebuyers. The average sales price of a Lennar home was $243,000 in both fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2009, compared to $270,000 in fiscal 2008. We operate primarily under the Lennar brand name.

Through our own efforts and those of unconsolidated entities in which Lennar Homebuilding has investments, we are involved in all phases of planning and building in our residential communities including land acquisition, site planning, preparation and improvement of land and design, construction and marketing of homes. For additional information about our investments in and relationships with unconsolidated entities, see Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7 of this Report.

Inventory Impairments and Valuation Adjustments related to Lennar Homebuilding Investments in Unconsolidated Entities

We continued evaluating our balance sheet quarterly for impairment on an asset-by-asset basis during fiscal 2010. Based on our evaluations and assessments, during the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we recorded the following inventory impairments:

During the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008, we recorded the following valuation adjustments related to Lennar Homebuilding investments in unconsolidated entities:

The inventory impairments and valuation adjustments to Lennar Homebuilding investments in unconsolidated entities recorded above were estimated based on market conditions and assumptions made by management at the time the valuation adjustments were recorded, which may differ materially from actual results if market conditions or our assumptions change.

Lennar Homebuilding Investments in Unconsolidated Entities

For a number of years, we created and participated in joint ventures that acquired and developed land for our homebuilding operations, for sale to third parties or for use in their own homebuilding operations. Through these joint ventures, we reduced the amount we had to invest in order to assure access to potential future homesites, thereby mitigating certain risks associated with land acquisitions, and, in some instances, we obtained access to land to which we could not otherwise have obtained access or could not have obtained access on as favorable terms. Although these ventures initially served their intended purpose of risk mitigation, as the homebuilding market deteriorated and asset impairments resulted in the loss of equity, some of our joint venture partners became financially unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations. During 2010, we continued reevaluating all of our joint venture arrangements, with particular focus on those ventures with recourse indebtedness, and reduced

the number of joint ventures in which we were participating as well as the recourse indebtedness of those joint ventures. As of November 30, 2010, we had reduced the number of Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated joint ventures in which we were participating to 42 from 270 joint ventures at the peak in 2006 and reduced our maximum recourse debt exposure related to Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated joint ventures to $172.9 million from $1,764.4 million at the peak in 2006. At November 30, 2010, our net recourse exposure related to Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated entities was $114.0 million.

Management and Operating Structure

We balance a local operating structure with centralized corporate level management. Decisions related to our overall strategy, acquisitions of land and businesses, risk management, financing, cash management and information systems are centralized at the corporate level. Our local operating structure consists of divisions, which are managed by individuals who generally have significant experience in the homebuilding industry and, in most instances, in their particular markets. They are responsible for operating decisions regarding land identification, entitlement and development, the management of inventory levels for our current volume levels, community development, home design, construction and marketing of our homes.

Diversified Program of Property Acquisition

We generally acquire land for development and for the construction of homes that we sell to homebuyers. Land is subject to specified underwriting criteria and is acquired through our diversified program of property acquisition, which may consist of the following:

At November 30, 2010, we owned 84,482 homesites and had access through option contracts to an additional 19,974 homesites, of which 8,490 were through option contracts with third parties and 11,484 were through option contracts with Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated entities in which we have investments. At November 30, 2009, we owned 82,703 homesites and had access through option contracts to an additional 21,173 homesites, of which 7,423 were through option contracts with third parties and 13,750 were through option contracts with Lennar Homebuilding unconsolidated entities in which we have investments.

Construction and Development

We generally supervise and control the development of land and the design and building of our residential communities with a relatively small labor force. We hire subcontractors for site improvements and virtually all of the work involved in the construction of homes. Arrangements with our subcontractors generally provide that our subcontractors will complete specified work in accordance with price schedules and applicable building codes and laws. The price schedules may be subject to change to meet changes in labor and material costs or for other reasons. We believe that the sources and availability of raw materials to our subcontractors are adequate for our current and planned levels of operation. We generally do not own heavy construction equipment. We finance construction and land development activities primarily with cash generated from operations, debt issuances and equity offerings.

Marketing

We offer a diversified line of homes for first-time, move-up and active adult homebuyers available in a variety of environments ranging from urban infill communities to golf course communities. We sell our homes primarily from models that we have designed and constructed. During 2010, the homes we delivered had an average sales price of $243,000.

We employ sales associates who are paid salaries, commissions or both to complete on-site sales of homes. We also sell homes through independent brokers. We advertise our communities through newspapers, radio advertisements and other local and regional publications, on billboards and on the Internet, including our website, www.lennar.com. In addition, we advertise our active adult communities in areas where prospective active adult homebuyers live.

Quality Service

We strive to continually improve homeowner customer satisfaction throughout the pre-sale, sale, construction, closing and post-closing periods. Through the participation of sales associates, on-site construction supervisors and customer care associates, all working in a team effort, we strive to create a quality homebuying experience for our customers, which we believe leads to enhanced customer retention and referrals. The quality of our homes is substantially affected by the efforts of on-site management and others engaged in the construction process, by the materials we use in particular homes or by other similar factors.

We warrant our new homes against defective materials and workmanship for a minimum period of one year after the date of closing. Although we subcontract virtually all segments of construction to others and our contracts call for the subcontractors to repair or replace any deficient items related to their trades, we are primarily responsible to the homebuyers for the correction of any deficiencies.

Deliveries

The table below indicates the number of deliveries for each of our homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other during our last three fiscal years:

Of the total home deliveries listed above, 96, 56 and 391, respectively, represent deliveries from unconsolidated entities for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Backlog

Backlog represents the number of homes under sales contracts. Homes are sold using sales contracts, which are generally accompanied by sales deposits. In some instances, purchasers are permitted to cancel sales contracts if they fail to qualify for financing or under certain other circumstances. We experienced a cancellation rate of 17% in 2010, compared to 18% and 26%, respectively, in 2009 and 2008. Substantially all homes currently in backlog will be delivered in fiscal year 2011. We do not recognize revenue on homes under sales contracts until the sales are closed and title passes to the new homeowners.

The table below indicates the backlog dollar value for each of our homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other as of the end of our last three fiscal years:

Of the dollar value of homes in backlog listed above, $2.1 million, $7.2 million and $12.5 million, respectively, represent the backlog dollar value from unconsolidated entities at November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Lennar Financial Services Operations

Mortgage Financing

We primarily originate conforming conventional, FHA-insured, VA-guaranteed residential mortgage loan products and other products to our homebuyers and others through our financial services subsidiaries, Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC and Eagle Home Mortgage, LLC, which are located generally in the same states as our homebuilding operations as well as other states. In 2010, our financial services subsidiaries provided loans to 85% of our homebuyers who obtained mortgage financing in areas where we offered services. Because of the availability of mortgage loans from our financial services subsidiaries, as well as independent mortgage lenders, we believe most creditworthy purchasers of our homes have access to financing.

During 2010, we originated approximately 15,200 mortgage loans totaling $3.3 billion, compared to 17,900 mortgage loans totaling $4.0 billion during 2009. Substantially all of the loans we originate are sold within a short period in the secondary mortgage market on a servicing released, non-recourse basis. After the loans are sold, we retain potential liability for possible claims by purchasers that we breached certain limited industry-standard representations and warranties in the loan sale agreements. Therefore, we have limited direct exposure related to the residential mortgages we originate.

We have a corporate risk management policy under which we hedge our interest rate risk on rate-locked loan commitments and loans held-for-sale to mitigate exposure to interest rate fluctuations. We finance our mortgage loan activities with borrowings under our financial services warehouse repurchase facilities or from our operating funds. One of our warehouse repurchase facilities with a maximum aggregate commitment of $150 million and an additional uncommitted amount of $50 million matures in April 2011, and the other warehouse repurchase facility with a maximum aggregate commitment of $175 million matures in July 2011. We expect the facilities to be renewed or replaced with other facilities when they mature.

Title Insurance and Closing Services

We provide title insurance and closing services to our homebuyers and others. During 2010, we provided title and closing services for approximately 102,500 real estate transactions, and issued approximately 107,600 title insurance policies through our underwriter, North American Title Insurance Company, compared to 120,500 real estate transactions and 92,500 title insurance policies issued during 2009. Title and closing services are provided by agency subsidiaries in Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.Title insurance services are provided in these same states, as well as in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee.

Rialto Investments Operations

The Rialto segment was formed to focus on acquisitions of distressed debt and other real estate assets utilizing Rialto’s abilities to source, underwrite, price, turnaround and ultimately monetize such assets in markets across the United States. For more detail regarding the acquisitions and investments made by our Rialto segment during 2010, refer to the Overview of Lennar Corporation section discussed earlier in Item 1 of this Report.

Seasonality

We have historically experienced variability in our results of operations from quarter-to-quarter due to the seasonal nature of the homebuilding business.

Competition

The residential homebuilding industry is highly competitive. We compete for homebuyers in each of the market regions where we operate with numerous national, regional and local homebuilders, as well as with resales of existing homes and with the rental housing market. In recent years, lenders’ efforts to sell foreclosed homes have become an increasingly competitive factor within the homebuilding industry. We compete for homebuyers on the basis of a number of interrelated factors including location, price, reputation, amenities, design, quality and financing. In addition to competition for homebuyers, we also compete with other homebuilders for desirable properties, raw materials and reliable, skilled labor. We compete for land buyers with third parties in our efforts to sell land to homebuilders and others. We believe we are competitive in the market regions where we operate primarily due to our:

Our financial services operations compete with other mortgage lenders, including national, regional and local mortgage bankers and brokers, banks, savings and loan associations and other financial institutions, in the origination and sale of mortgage loans. Principal competitive factors include interest rates and other features of mortgage loan products available to the consumer. We compete with other title insurance agencies and underwriters for closing services and title insurance. Principal competitive factors include service and price.

Rialto’s business of purchasing distressed assets is highly competitive and fragmented. A number of entities and funds have been formed recently for the purpose of acquiring real estate related assets at prices that reflect the depressed state of the real estate market, and it is likely that additional entities and funds will be formed for this purpose in the next several years. We compete with other purchasers of distressed assets. We compete in the marketplace for distressed asset portfolios based on many factors, including purchase price, representations, warranties and indemnities, timeliness of purchase decisions and reputation. We believe that our major distinction from the competition is that our team is made up of already in place managers who are already working out loans and dealing with similar borrowers. Additionally, because of the high content of loans made to developers, we believe having our homebuilding team participating in the underwriting process provides us with a distinct advantage in our evaluation of these assets. We believe that our experienced team and the infrastructure already in place, including our investment in a service provider, are ahead of our competitors. This has us well positioned for the large pipeline of opportunity that has been building.

Regulation

Homes and residential communities that we build must comply with state and local laws and regulations relating to, among other things, zoning, construction permits or entitlements, construction material requirements, density requirements, and requirements relating to building design and property elevation, building codes and handling of waste. These include laws requiring the use of construction materials that reduce the need for energy-consuming heating and cooling systems. These laws and regulations are subject to frequent change and often increase construction costs. In some instances, we must comply with laws that require commitments from us to provide roads and other offsite infrastructure to be in place prior to the commencement of new construction. These laws and regulations are usually administered by counties and municipalities and may result in fees and assessments or building moratoriums. In addition, certain new development projects are subject to assessments for schools, parks, streets and highways and other public improvements, the costs of which can be substantial.

The residential homebuilding industry is also subject to a variety of local, state and federal statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations concerning the protection of health and the environment. These environmental laws include such areas as storm water and surface water management, soil, groundwater and wetlands protection, subsurface conditions and air quality protection and enhancement. Environmental laws and existing conditions may result in delays, may cause us to incur substantial compliance and other costs and may prohibit or severely restrict homebuilding activity in environmentally sensitive regions or areas.

In recent years, several cities and counties in which we have developments have submitted to voters “slow growth” initiatives and other ballot measures that could impact the affordability and availability of land suitable for residential development within those localities. Although many of these initiatives have been defeated, we believe that if similar initiatives were approved, residential construction by us and others within certain cities or counties could be seriously impacted.

In order to make it possible for some of our homebuyers to obtain FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages, we must construct the homes they buy in compliance with regulations promulgated by those agencies.

Various states have statutory disclosure requirements relating to the marketing and sale of new homes. These disclosure requirements vary widely from state-to-state. In addition, some states require that each new home be registered with the state at or before the time title is transferred to a buyer (e.g., the Texas Residential Construction Commission Act).

In some states, we are required to be registered as a licensed contractor and comply with applicable rules and regulations. In various states, our new home consultants are required to be registered as licensed real estate agents and to adhere to the laws governing the practices of real estate agents.

Our mortgage and title subsidiaries must comply with applicable real estate laws and regulations. The subsidiaries are licensed in the states in which they do business and must comply with laws and regulations in those states. These laws and regulations include provisions regarding capitalization, operating procedures, investments, lending and privacy disclosures, forms of policies and premiums.

A subsidiary of Newhall, an unconsolidated entity of which we currently indirectly own 15%, provides water to a portion of Los Angeles County, California. This subsidiary is subject to extensive regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Several federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and ordinances, including, but not limited to, the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Federal Trade Commission Act and comparable state statutes, regulate consumer debt collection activity. Although, for a variety of reasons, we may not be specifically subject to the FDCPA or certain state statutes that govern debt collectors, it is our policy to comply with applicable laws in our collection activities. To the extent that some or all of these laws apply to our collection activities or failure to comply with such laws could have a material adverse effect on us.

Compliance Policy

We have a Code of Business and Ethics that requires every associate (i.e., employee) and officer to at all times deal fairly with the Company’s customers, subcontractors, suppliers, competitors and associates, and states that all our associates, officers and directors are expected to comply at all times with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. Despite this, there are instances in which subcontractors or others through which we do business engage in practices that do not comply with applicable regulations and guidelines. There have been instances in which some of our associates were aware of these practices and did not take adequate steps to prevent them. When we learn of practices relating to homes we build or financing we provide that do not comply with applicable regulations or guidelines, we move actively to stop the non-complying practices as soon as possible and we have taken disciplinary action with regard to our associates who were aware of the practices, including in some instances terminating their employment. Our Code of Business and Ethics also has procedures in place that allows whistleblowers to submit their concerns regarding our operations, financial reporting, business integrity or any other related matter anonymously to the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors and/or to the non-management directors of our Board of Directors, thus helping protect them from any possibility of retaliation.

Associates

At December 31, 2010, we employed 4,087 individuals of whom 2,208 were involved in the Lennar Homebuilding operations, 1,767 were involved in the Lennar Financial Services operations, and 112 were involved in the Rialto operations, compared to November 30, 2009, when we employed 3,873 individuals of whom 2,204 were involved in the Lennar Homebuilding operations and 1,669 were involved in Lennar Financial Services operations. We do not have collective bargaining agreements relating to any of our associates. However, we subcontract many phases of our homebuilding operations and some of the subcontractors we use have associates who are represented by labor unions.

Relationship with LNR Property Corporation

In 1997, we transferred our commercial real estate investment and management business to LNR Property Corporation (“LNR”), and spun-off LNR to our stockholders. As a result, LNR became a publicly-traded company, and the family of Stuart A. Miller, our President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director, which had voting control of our company, became the controlling shareholder of LNR.

Since the spin-off, we have entered into a number of joint ventures and other transactions with LNR. Many of the joint ventures were formed to acquire and develop land, part of which was subsequently sold to us or other homebuilders for residential building and part of which was subsequently sold to LNR for commercial development. In February 2005, LNR was acquired by a privately-owned entity. Although Mr. Miller’s family was required to purchase a 20.4% financial interest in that privately-owned entity, this interest is non-voting and

neither Mr. Miller nor anyone else in his family is an officer or director, or otherwise is involved in the management, of LNR or its parent. Nonetheless, because the Miller family continues to have a financial, non-voting, interest in LNR’s parent, although reduced from the percentage interest initially acquired, significant transactions with LNR, or entities in which it has an interest, have historically been and continued to be reviewed and approved by the Independent Directors Committee of our Board of Directors.

LandSource/Newhall Transactions

In January 2004, a company of which we and LNR each owned 50% acquired The Newhall Land and Farming Company for approximately $1 billion, including $200 million we contributed and $200 million that LNR contributed (the remainder came from borrowings and sales of properties to LNR). Subsequently, we and LNR each transferred our interests in most of our joint ventures to the jointly-owned company that had acquired The Newhall Land and Farming Company, and that company was renamed LandSource Communities Development LLC (“LandSource”).

In February 2007, LandSource admitted MW Housing Partners as a new strategic partner. As part of the transaction, the joint venture obtained $1.6 billion of non-recourse financing, which consisted of a $200 million five-year Revolving Credit Facility, a $1.1 billion six-year Term Loan B Facility and a $244 million seven-year Second Lien Term Facility. The transaction resulted in a cash distribution to us of $707.6 million and a similar distribution to LNR. Our resulting ownership of LandSource was 16%.

In June 2008, LandSource and a number of its subsidiaries commenced proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. In November 2008, our land purchase options with LandSource were terminated, thus, in 2008 we recognized a deferred profit of $101.3 million (net of $31.8 million of write-offs of option deposits and pre-acquisition costs and other write-offs) related to the 2007 recapitalization of LandSource.

In July 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the plan of reorganization for LandSource. As a result of the bankruptcy proceedings, LandSource was reorganized into a new company named Newhall Land Development, LLC, (“Newhall”). The reorganized company emerged from Chapter 11 free of its previous bank debt. As part of the reorganization, we invested $140 million in exchange for approximately a 15% equity interest in the reorganized Newhall, ownership in several communities that were formerly owned by LandSource, the settlement and release of any claims that might have been asserted against us and certain other claims LandSource had against third parties.

NYSE Certification

We submitted our 2009 Annual CEO Certification to the New York Stock Exchange on April 16, 2010. The certification was not qualified in any respect.

Available Information

Our corporate website is www.lennar.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Report on Form 10-K quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to these reports filed or furnished pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file these documents with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information on our website is not part of this document.

Our website also includes printable versions of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters(the “Form 10-K”) for each of our Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees of our Board of Directors. Each of these documents is also available in print to any stockholder who requests a copy by addressing a request to:

Lennar Corporation

Attention: Office of the General Counsel

700 Northwest 107^th Avenue

Miami, Florida 33172

Item 1A.    Risk Factors.

The following are what we believe to be the principal risks that could cause a material adverse effect upon our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, strategies and prospects.

Homebuilding Market and Economic Risks

The homebuilding industry has experienced a significant downturn over the last several years. A continuing decline in demand for new homes coupled with an increase in the inventory of available new homes and alternatives to new homes could adversely affect our sales volume and pricing even more than has occurred to date.

The homebuilding industry has experienced a significant downturn over the last several years. As a result, we have experienced a significant decline in demand for newly built homes in almost all of our markets. This decline in demand, together with an oversupply of alternatives to new homes, such as rental properties and used homes (including foreclosed homes), has depressed prices and reduced margins. This combination of lower demand and higher inventories affects both the number of homes we can sell and the prices at which we can sell them. In 2008 and 2009, we experienced periods of significant decline in our sales results, significant reductions in our margins as a result of higher levels of sales incentives and price concessions, and a higher than normal cancellation rate. In 2010, our margins improved to closer to normal market levels, but demand continued to be weak and there continued to be a significant stock of used homes, including foreclosed homes. We have no basis for predicting how long demand and supply will remain out of balance in various homebuilding markets or whether sales volumes or pricing will return to pre-2007 levels.

Demand for new homes is sensitive to economic conditions over which we have no control, such as the availability of mortgage financing and the level of employment.

Demand for new homes is sensitive to changes in economic conditions such as the level of employment, consumer confidence, consumer income, the availability of financing and interest rate levels. During 2008, 2009 and 2010, the mortgage lending industry experienced significant instability. As a result of increased default rates, particularly (but not entirely) with regard to sub-prime and other non-conforming loans, many lenders have reduced their willingness to make, and tightened their credit requirements with regard to, residential mortgage loans. Fewer loan products, stricter loan qualification standards and higher down payment requirements have made it more difficult for some borrowers to finance the purchase of our homes. Although our finance company subsidiaries offer mortgage loans to potential buyers of most of the homes we build, we may no longer be able to offer financing terms that are attractive to our potential buyers. Lack of availability of mortgage financing at acceptable rates reduces demand (the “Company”) for the homes we build, including in some instances causing potential buyers to cancel contracts they have signed.

There has also been a substantial loss of jobs in the United States during the last several years. People who are not employed or are concerned about loss of their jobs are unlikely to purchase new homes and may be forced to try to sell the homes they own. Therefore, the current employment situation can adversely affect us both by reducing demand for the homes we build and by increasing the supply of homes for sale.

Mortgage defaults by homebuyers who financed homes using non-traditional financing products are increasing the number of homes available for resale.

During the period of high demand in the homebuilding industry, many homebuyers financed their purchases using non-traditional adjustable rate or interest only mortgages or other mortgages, including sub-prime mortgages that involved, at least during initial years, monthly payments that were significantly lower than those required by conventional fixed rate mortgages. As a result, new homes became more affordable. However, as monthly payments for these homes have increased either as a result of increasing adjustable interest rates or as a result of principal payments coming due, some of these homebuyers have defaulted on their payments and had their homes foreclosed, which has increased the inventory of homes available for resale. This is likely to continue. Foreclosure sales and other distress sales may result in further declines in market prices for homes. In an environment of declining home prices, many homebuyers may delay purchases of homes in anticipation of lower prices in the future. In addition, as lenders perceive deterioration in credit quality among homebuyers, lenders have been eliminating some of the available non-traditional and sub-prime financing products and increasing the qualifications needed for mortgages or adjusting their terms to address increased credit risk. In general, to the extent mortgage rates increase or lenders make it more difficult for prospective buyers to finance home purchases, it becomes more difficult or costly for customers to purchase our homes, which has an adverse effect on our sales volume.

It has become more difficult for potential homebuyers to obtain mortgage financing, which is reducing demand for homes we offer.

Many lenders and other holders of mortgage loans have been adversely affected in recent years by a combination of reduced ability of homeowners to meet mortgage obligations and reduced value of the homes that secure mortgage loans. As a result, many lenders and secondary market mortgage purchasers have eliminated most of their non-traditional and sub-prime financing products and increased the qualifications needed to obtain mortgage loans. In addition, if a home appraises for less than the sales price, a greater down-payment may need to be provided by the potential homebuyer in order to meet the lender requirement or the sales price may need to be reduced. Although mortgage interest rates were very low during 2010, the factors that have made mortgage loans more difficult to obtain could lead to higher interest rates on mortgage loans that are made. To the extent lenders make it more difficult or more expensive for prospective buyers to finance home purchases, it becomes more difficult or costly for customers to purchase our homes, which has an adverse effect on our sales volume.

We have had to take significant write-downs of the carrying values of the land we own and of our investments in unconsolidated entities, and a continuing decline in land values could result in additional write-downs.

Some of the land we currently own was purchased at high prices and had to be written down to reduced values that reflect current market conditions. Also, prior to 2007, we obtained options to purchase land at prices that no longer are attractive, and in connection with those options, we made substantial non-refundable deposits and, in some instances, incurred pre-acquisition costs. When demand fell, we were required to take significant write-downs of the carrying value of our land inventory and we elected not to exercise many high price options, even though that required us to forfeit deposits and write-off pre-acquisition costs.

Additionally, as a result of these market conditions, we recorded significant valuation adjustments to our investments in unconsolidated entities and recorded our share of adjustments made by unconsolidated entities to the carrying values of their assets.

The combination of land inventory impairments, write-offs of option deposits and pre-acquisition costs and valuation adjustments relating to our investments in unconsolidated entities had a material negative effect on our operating results for fiscal 2007, 2008 and 2009, contributing to most of our net loss in fiscal 2008 and 2009. Write downs were a lot less during 2010, however, if market conditions deteriorate further or our strategy related to certain assets change, some of our assets may be subject to further write-downs in the future, decreasing the asset values reflected on our balance sheet and adversely affecting our stockholders’ equity.

Inflation can adversely affect us, particularly in a period of declining home sale prices.

Inflation can have a long-term impact on us because increasing costs of land, materials and labor require us to attempt to increase the sale prices of homes in order to maintain satisfactory margins. Although the rate of inflation has been low for the last several years, some economists predict that government spending programs and other factors could lead to significant inflation in the future. An excess of supply over demand for new homes, such as the one we are currently experiencing, requires that we reduce prices, rather than increase them, but it does not necessarily result in reductions, or prevent increases, in the costs of materials and labor. The effect of cost increases that we cannot recover by increasing prices would be to reduce the margins on the homes we sell. That would make it more difficult for us to recover the full cost of previously purchased land, and could lead to significant reductions in the value of our land inventory.

We face significant competition in our efforts to sell new homes.

The homebuilding industry is highly competitive. We compete in each of our markets with numerous national, regional and local homebuilders. This competition with other homebuilders could reduce the number of homes we deliver or cause us to accept reduced margins in order to maintain sales volume.

We also compete with the resale of existing homes, including foreclosed homes, sales by housing speculators and available rental housing. As demand for homes has slowed, competition, including competition with homes purchased for speculation rather than as places to live and competition with foreclosed homes, has created increased downward pressure on the prices at which we are able to sell homes, as well as upon the number of homes we can sell.

Operational Risks

Homebuilding is subject to warranty and liability claims in the ordinary course of business that can be significant.

As a homebuilder, we are subject to home warranty and construction defect claims arising in the ordinary course of business. We are also subject to liability claims for injuries that occur in the course of construction activities. We record warranty and other reserves for the homes we sell based on historical experience in our markets and our judgment of the qualitative risks associated with the types of homes we built. We have, and many of our subcontractors have, general liability, property, errors and omissions, workers compensation and other business insurance. These insurance policies protect us against a portion of our risk of loss from claims, subject to certain self-insured retentions, deductibles and other coverage limits. However, because of the uncertainties inherent in these matters, we cannot provide assurance that our insurance coverage or our subcontractors’ insurance and financial resources will be adequate to address all warranty, construction defect and liability claims in the future. Additionally, the coverage offered and the availability of general liability insurance for construction defects are currently limited and costly. As a result, an increasing number of our subcontractors are unable to obtain insurance, and we have in many cases waived our customary insurance requirements. There can be no assurance that coverage will not be further restricted and become even more costly.

Performance of subcontractors and quality and suitability of building materials.

We rely on subcontractors to perform the actual construction of our homes, and in many cases, to select and obtain raw materials. Despite our detailed specifications and quality control procedures, in some cases, improper construction processes or defective materials, such as Chinese drywall, were used in the construction of our homes. When we find these issues, we repair them in accordance with our warranty obligations. Defective products widely used by the homebuilding industry can result in the need to perform extensive repairs to large numbers of homes. The cost to the Company of complying with our warranty obligations in these cases may be significant if we are unable to recover the cost of repair from subcontractors, materials suppliers and insurers.

Natural disasters and severe weather conditions could delay deliveries, increase costs and decrease demand for new homes in affected areas.

Many of our homebuilding operations are conducted in areas that are subject to natural disasters and severe weather. The occurrence of natural disasters or severe weather conditions can delay new home deliveries, increase costs by damaging inventories and negatively impact the demand for new homes in affected areas. Furthermore, if our insurance does not fully cover business interruptions or losses resulting from these events, our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources could be adversely affected.

Supply shortages and other risks related to the demand for skilled labor and building materials could increase costs and delay deliveries.

Increased costs or shortages of skilled labor and/or lumber, framing, concrete, steel and other building materials could cause increases in construction costs and construction delays. We generally are unable to pass on increases in construction costs to customers who have already entered into sales contracts, as those sales contracts generally fix the price of the homes at the time the contracts are signed, which may be well in advance of the construction of the home. Sustained increases in construction costs may, over time, erode our margins, particularly if pricing competition restricts our ability to pass on any additional costs of materials or labor, thereby decreasing our margins.

Reduced numbers of home sales extend the time it takes us to recover land purchase and property development costs.

We incur many costs even before we begin to build homes in a community. These include costs of preparing land and installing roads, sewers and other utilities, as well as taxes and other costs related to ownership of the land on which we plan to build homes. Reducing the rate at which we build homes extends the length of time it takes us to recover these costs. Also, when we have terminated land purchase options, we have forfeited deposits we made with regard to the options, and in many instances, lost the benefit of pre-acquisition costs we incurred with regard to properties that were the subject of the options. We may never recover those costs.

We do not have a corporate credit line.

Our business requires that we be able to finance the development of our residential communities. In the past we have had a corporate credit facility (with Lennar Corporation as the borrower and most of our subsidiaries, other than finance company subsidiaries, as guarantors) that we used to help finance development activities. However, because of the decline in our land purchasing, development and building activities, and our ability to obtain debt and equity financing through the capital markets, we have had little need for the credit facility in recent years. Therefore, in February 2010, we terminated the Credit Facility in order to eliminate the cost of maintaining it. While we believe that under current circumstances, the funds we generate through our operations, together with our ability to sell debt and equity securities into capital markets, give us access to all the funds we need, if market conditions lead us to want to increase our homebuilding activities to a level that requires us to incur short-term borrowings, but we are not able to arrange a new credit facility, the absence of a credit facility may prevent us from taking full advantage of market opportunities.

We do not have an investment grade credit rating, which makes it more difficult and costly for us to access capital on favorable terms.

Our ability to access capital on favorable terms has been an important factor in growing our business and operations in a profitable manner. In 2007 and 2008, each of the principal credit rating agencies lowered our credit ratings, and as a result we no longer have investment grade ratings. This makes it more costly, and under some circumstances could make it more difficult, for us to access the debt capital markets for funds we may require in order to implement our business plans and achieve our growth objectives.

Despite not having an investment grade rating, during 2010, we were able to sell debt securities in capital market transactions at significantly lower interest rates than prior year. We sold $250 million principal amount of 6.95% senior notes due 2018, $276.5 million of 2.00% convertible senior notes and $446 million of 2.75% convertible senior notes, both due in 2020. The interest rates with regard to that debt are higher than they probably would have been if we had had an investment grade rating. However, unless and until our credit rating improves, our cost of borrowing in capital market transactions will almost always be higher than it would be if we had an investment grade rating. If we were subject to further downgrades, that would exacerbate such difficulties.

The repurchase warehouse credit facilities of our Financial Services segment will expire in 2011.

Our Lennar Financial Services segment has a warehouse repurchase facility with a maximum aggregate commitment of $150 million and an additional uncommitted amount of $50 million that matures in April 2011, and another warehouse repurchase facility with a maximum aggregate commitment of $175 million that matures in July 2011. The Financial Services segment uses these facilities to finance its mortgage lending activities until the mortgage loans are sold to investors and expects both facilities to be renewed or replaced with other facilities when they mature. If we are unable to renew or replace these facilities when they mature, that could seriously impede the activities of our Financial Services segment, unless we are willing and able to provide the funds our Financial Services segment needs to finance its mortgage originations until the mortgages can be sold.

We conduct some of our operations through unconsolidated joint ventures with independent third parties in which we do not have a controlling interest and we can be adversely impacted by joint venture partners’ failure to fulfill their obligations.

For a number of years, we created and participated in joint ventures that acquired and developed land for our homebuilding operations, for sale to third parties or for use in their own homebuilding operations. Through these joint ventures, we reduced the amount we had to invest in order to assure access to potential future homesites, and, in some instances, we obtained access to land to which we could not otherwise have obtained access or could not have obtained access on as favorable terms. However, as the homebuilding market deteriorated beginning in 2006, many of our joint venture partners became financially unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations.

Most joint ventures borrowed money to help finance their activities, and although recourse on the loans was generally limited to the joint ventures and their properties, frequently we and our joint venture partners were required to provide maintenance guarantees (guarantees that the values of the joint ventures’ assets would be at least specified percentages of their borrowings) or limited repayment guarantees.

If a joint venture partner does not perform its obligations, we may be required to make significant financial expenditures or otherwise undertake the performance of obligations not satisfied by our partner at significant cost to us. Also, when we have guaranteed joint venture obligations, we have been given the right to be reimbursed by our joint venture partners for any amounts by which we pay more than our pro rata share of the joint ventures’ obligations. However, particularly if our joint venture partners are having financial problems, we may have difficulty collecting the sums they owe us, and therefore, we may be required to pay a disproportionately large portion of the guaranteed amounts. In addition, because we lack a controlling interest in these joint ventures, we are usually unable to require that they sell assets, return invested capital or take any other action without the consent of at least one of our joint venture partners. As a result, without joint venture partner consent, we may be unable to liquidate our joint venture investments to generate cash. Even if we are able to liquidate joint venture investments, the amounts received upon liquidation may be insufficient to cover the costs we have incurred in satisfying joint venture obligations.

During 2007 through 2010, we have significantly reduced the number of joint ventures in which we participate and our exposure to recourse indebtedness of such joint ventures. However, the risks to us from joint ventures in which we are a participant are likely to continue at least as long as the value of residential properties continues to decline.

The unconsolidated entities in which we have investments may not be able to modify the terms of their debt arrangements.

Some of the unconsolidated entities’ debt arrangements contain financial covenants they may not be able to meet. Additionally, certain joint venture loan agreements have minimum number of homesite takedown requirements in which the joint ventures are required to sell a minimum number of homesites over a stated period of time. Due to the deterioration of the homebuilding market, many of the joint ventures are in the process of repaying, refinancing, renegotiating or extending their loans. This action may be required, for example, in the case of an expired maturity date or a failure to comply with the loan’s covenants. There can be no assurance that the joint ventures will be able to finance, refinance, renegotiate or extend, on terms we and our joint venture partners deem acceptable, all of the joint venture loans that are currently being renegotiated. If joint ventures are unsuccessful in these efforts, we could be required to provide at least a portion of the funds the joint ventures need to be able to repay the loans.

We could be adversely impacted by the loss of key management personnel.

Our future success depends, to a significant degree, on the efforts of our senior management. Our operations could be adversely affected if key members of senior management cease to be active in our company. As a result of a decline in our stock price, previous retention mechanisms, such as equity awards, have diminished in value.

Our Financial Services segment is adversely affected by reduced demand for our homes.

A majority of the mortgage loans made by our Financial Services segment are made to buyers of homes we build. Therefore, a decrease in the demand for our homes adversely affects the financial results of this segment of our business.

If our ability to resell mortgages is impaired, we may be required to reduce home sales unless we are willing to become a long term investor in loans we originate.

Substantially all of the loans we originate are sold within a short period in the secondary mortgage market on a servicing released, non-recourse basis. After the loans are sold, we retain potential liability for possible claims by purchasers that we breached certain limited industry-standard representations and warranties in the loan sale agreements. The secondary mortgage market has been severely impacted by the decline in property values over the past several years. To date, our financial company subsidiaries have been able to sell substantially all the mortgages they have originated. If, however we became unable to sell loans into the secondary mortgage market or directly to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we would either have to curtail our origination of mortgage loans, which among other things, could significantly reduce our ability to sell homes, or to commit our own funds to long term investments in mortgage loans, which could, among other things, delay the time when we recognize revenues from home sales on our statements of operations.

Our Financial Services segment receives demands that it repurchase mortgage loans it sold in the secondary mortgage market and we may be required to repurchase loans in excess of amounts reserved.

Particularly during 2008, 2009 and 2010, our Financial Services segment received demands that it repurchase certain loans that it sold to entities in the secondary mortgage market. The demands have related primarily to loans originated during 2005 through 2007 and are frequently based on assertions that information borrowers gave our Financial Services segment was not accurate. In many instances, we have successfully disputed the claims. However, in some instances we have settled claims to maintain our business relationships with the claimants or to avoid litigation costs. In other instances, there are active disputes regarding certain loans. While we believe we have significant defenses against virtually all of the currently unresolved repurchase demands, we have established a reserve based upon, among other things, an analysis of repurchase requests received, an estimate of potential repurchase claims not yet received, our actual past repurchases and losses through the disposition of affected loans. At November 30, 2010, this reserve was $9.9 million. If there is an unexpected increase in the amount of repurchase demands we receive, or if we are not able to resolve repurchase demands on a basis consistent with our experience to date, the cost to us with regard to the repurchase demands could exceed the reserve we have established.

Our Rialto segment invests in distressed loans and real estate related assets at significant discounts; however, if the real estate markets deteriorate significantly we could suffer losses.

Almost all the investments to date by our Rialto segment have involved acquisitions of portfolios of, or interests in portfolios of, distressed loans and other real estate related assets. That is consistent with the Rialto segment’s objective of focusing on commercial and residential real estate opportunities arising from dislocations in the United States real estate markets and the restructuring and recapitalization of those markets. However, the Rialto segment’s investing in distressed loans and other real estate related assets presents many risks in addition to those inherent in normal lending activities, including the risk that the anticipated restructuring and recapitalization of the United States real estate markets will not take place for many years, the risk that defaults on debt instruments in which the Rialto segment invests will be greater than anticipated and the risk that if the Rialto segment has to liquidate its investments into the market, it could suffer losses in doing so. There is also the possibility that, even if the Rialto segment’s investments perform as expected, absence of a liquid market for these investments will result in a need to reduce the value at which they are carried on our financial statements.

There is substantial competition for the types of investments on which our Rialto segment is focused, and this may limit the ability of the Rialto segment to make investments on terms that are attractive to it.

Our Rialto segment currently is focused on investments in distressed mortgage debt, foreclosed properties and other real estate related assets that have been adversely affected by the dislocations during the last several years in the markets for real estate, mortgage loans and real estate related securities. Many of the opportunities to acquire these types of assets arise under programs involving co-investments with and financing provided by agencies of the Federal government. There are many firms and investment funds that are trying to acquire the types of assets on which our Rialto segment is focused, and it is likely that a significant number of additional investment funds will be formed in the next year or more with the objective of acquiring those types of assets. At least some of the firms with which the Rialto segment competes, or will compete, for investment opportunities have, or will have, a cost of capital that is lower than that of the Rialto segment, and therefore may be able to pay more for investment opportunities than would be prudent for our Rialto segment.

Our Rialto segment could be adversely affected by court and governmental responses to improper residential mortgage foreclosure procedures.

During recent years it appears that residential mortgage lenders and residential mortgage loan servicers have in a number of instances failed to comply with the requirements for obtaining and foreclosing residential mortgage loans. Although our Rialto segment owns or manages entities that own large numbers of mortgage loans, those loans all were acquired by our Rialto segment and the entities it manages within the past year, and our Rialto segment has procedures designed to ensure that any mortgage foreclosures which it undertakes will comply with all applicable requirements. However, even if neither our Rialto segment nor any servicing organization it uses does anything improper in foreclosing mortgages held by the Rialto segment or entities it manages, reaction by courts and regulatory agencies against apparently widespread instances of improper mortgage foreclosure procedures could make it more difficult and more expensive for our Rialto segment to foreclose mortgages that secure loans that it or entities it manages own.

The ability of our Rialto segment to profit from the investments it makes may depend to a significant extent on its ability to manage resolutions related to the distressed loans and other real estate related assets.

A principal factor in a prospective purchaser’s decision regarding the price it will pay for a portfolio of mortgage loans or other real estate related assets is the cash flow the prospective purchaser expects the portfolio to generate. The cash flow a portfolio of distressed mortgage loans and related assets will generate can be affected by the way the assets in the portfolio are managed. We believe the backgrounds and experience of the personnel in our Rialto segment will enable the Rialto segment to generate better cash flows from the distressed assets it manages than what is generally expected with regard to similar assets. If it is not able to do that, the Rialto segment probably will not generate the returns it is seeking.

The supply of real estate related assets available at discounts from normal prices will likely decrease if and when the real estate markets improve, which could require our Rialto segment to change its investment objectives.

The current objectives of our Rialto segment is to focus on investments in commercial and residential real estate related assets that are available at below market prices because of the dislocations in the United States real estate markets over the past several years. A recovery of the real estate markets would probably benefit the investments the Rialto segment has made, but it probably would substantially reduce or end the availability of the types of investments the Rialto segment has made and currently is seeking. That would require the Rialto segment to rethink, and probably to change, its investment strategy.

Restrictions in agreements related to a fund that the Rialto segment manages could prevent the Rialto segment from making investments.

The Rialto segment manages the Rialto Real Estate Fund (the “Fund”), a fund that was formed to make investments in, among other things, distressed loans and real estate related assets. In order to protect investors in the Fund against the possibility that we would keep attractive investment opportunities for ourselves instead of presenting them to the Fund, we agreed that we would not make investments that are suitable for the Fund except to the extent an Advisory Committee consisting of representatives of Fund investors decides that the Fund should not make particular investments. There is an exception that permits us to purchase properties for use in connection with our homebuilding operations and to co-invest with the Fund (of which we will own between 10% and 25% depending on the total amount of the investments in the Fund).

Regulatory Risks

Federal laws and regulations that adversely affect liquidity in the secondary mortgage market could hurt our business.

There have been significant concerns about the continuing viability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and a number of proposals to curtail their activities. These organizations provide significant liquidity to the secondary mortgage market. Any curtailment of their activities could increase mortgage interest rates and increase the effective cost of our homes, which could reduce demand for our homes and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our homebuyers’ ability to qualify for and obtain affordable mortgages could be impacted by changes in government sponsored entities and private mortgage insurance companies supporting the mortgage market.

Changes made by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA/VA sponsored mortgage programs, as well as changes made by private mortgage insurance companies, have reduced the ability of many potential homebuyers to qualify for mortgages. Principal among these have been tighter lending standards such as higher income requirements, larger required down payments, increased reserves and higher required credit scores. Higher income requirements could reduce the amount that homebuyers can qualify for when buying new homes. Larger down payment requirements and increased asset reserve thresholds appear to be preventing or delaying some homebuyers from entering the market. Increased credit score requirements eliminate a segment of potential homebuyers.

Government entities in regions where we operate have adopted or may adopt, slow or no growth initiatives, which could adversely affect our ability to build or timely build in these areas.

Some state and local governments in areas where we operate have approved, and others where we operate may approve, various slow growth or no growth homebuilding initiatives and other ballot measures that could negatively impact the availability of land and building opportunities within those jurisdictions. Approval of slow growth, no growth or similar initiatives (including the effect of these initiatives on existing entitlements and zoning) could adversely affect our ability to build or timely build and sell homes in the affected markets and/or create additional administrative and regulatory requirements and costs, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our future revenues and earnings.

Compliance with federal, state and local regulations related to our business could create substantial costs both in time and money, and some regulations could prohibit or restrict some homebuilding ventures.

We are subject to extensive and complex laws and regulations that affect the land development and homebuilding process, including laws and regulations related to zoning, permitted land uses, levels of density, building design, elevation of properties, water and waste disposal and use of open spaces. In addition, we are subject to laws and regulations related to workers’ health and safety. We also are subject to a variety of local, state and federal laws and regulations concerning the protection of health and the environment. In some of the markets where we operate, we are required by law to pay environmental impact fees, use energy-saving construction materials and give commitments to municipalities to provide certain infrastructure such as roads and sewage systems. We generally are required to obtain permits, entitlements and approvals from local authorities to commence and carry out residential development or home construction. Such permits, entitlements and approvals may, from time-to-time, be opposed or challenged by local governments, neighboring property owners or other interested parties, adding delays, costs and risks of non-approval to the process. Our obligation to comply with the laws and regulations under which we operate, and our need to ensure that our associates, subcontractors and other agents comply with these laws and regulations, could result in delays in construction and land development, cause us to incur substantial costs and prohibit or restrict land development and homebuilding activity in certain areas in which we operate. Budget reductions by state and local governmental agencies may increase our builder fees and the time it takes to obtain required approvals and therefore may aggregate the delays we could encounter.

We can be injured by failures of persons who act on our behalf to comply with applicable regulations and guidelines.

Although we expect all of our associates (i.e., employees), officers and directors to comply at all times with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, there may be instances in which subcontractors or others through whom we do business engage in practices that do not comply with applicable regulations or guidelines. When we learn of practices relating to homes we build or financing we provide that do not comply with applicable regulations or guidelines, we move actively to stop the non-complying practices as soon as possible and we have taken disciplinary action with regard to our associates who were aware of the practices, including in some instances terminating their employment. However, regardless of the steps we take after we learn of practices that do not comply with applicable regulations or guidelines, we can in some instances be subject to fines or other governmental penalties, and our reputation can be injured, due to the practices’ having taken place.

Tax law changes could make home ownership more expensive or less attractive.

Significant expenses of owning a home, including mortgage interest expense and real estate taxes, generally are deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating an individual’s federal, and in some cases state, taxable income. If the government were to make changes to income tax laws that eliminate or substantially reduce these income tax deductions, the after-tax cost of owning a home would increase substantially. This could adversely impact demand for, and/or sales prices of, new homes.

Other Risks

We have a stockholder who can exercise significant influence over matters that are brought to a vote of our stockholders.

Stuart A. Miller, our President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director, has voting control, through personal holdings and family-owned entities, of Class A and Class B common stock that enables Mr. Miller to cast approximately 46% of the votes that may be cast by the holders of our outstanding Class A and Class B common

stock combined. That effectively gives Mr. Miller the power to control the election of our directors and the approval of matters that are presented to our stockholders. Mr. Miller’s voting power might discourage someone from acquiring us or from making a significant equity investment in us, even if we needed the investment to meet our obligations and to operate our business. Also, because of his voting power, Mr. Miller may be able to authorize actions that are contrary to our other stockholders’ desires.

We may not be able to benefit from net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards.

We suffered significant losses in 2007, 2008 and 2009 for tax (as well as for financial statement) purposes. We were able to carry back 100% of our 2007 tax loss and most of our 2008 tax loss to recover taxes we had paid with regard to prior years. However, we would not have been able to carry back our 2009 fiscal year tax loss without legislation enacted in November 2009 that expanded the NOL carryback to 5 years, but only allowed 50% of taxable income earned in 2004 to be offset with 2009 loss. We will not receive any tax benefits with regard to tax losses we could not carry back, except to the extent we have taxable income in the 20 year NOL carryforward period. In our financial statements, we have fully reserved against all our deferred tax assets due to the possibility that we may not have taxable income that will enable us to benefit from them. However, those reserves will be reversed when it becomes more likely than not that we will have sufficient future taxable income to take advantage of the deferred tax assets.

Trading in our shares could substantially reduce our ability to use tax loss carryforwards.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, if there is a greater than 50% change of ownership of our stock during any three-year period caused by more than 5% shareholders, the ability to utilize NOL carryforwards is limited to the market value of the Company times the long-term federal tax exempt rate. This change of ownership limitation can occur as a result of purchases and sales in the market by persons who become owners of more than 5% of our stock, even without becoming a new majority owner. During the past three years, there have not been any significant changes in our holdings by 5% shareholders. However, it is possible that as a result of future stock trading, within a three-year period buyers could acquire in the market 5% or greater ownership interests in our stock totaling more than 50%. If that occurred, our ability to apply our tax loss carryforwards could become limited.

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Executive Officers of Lennar Corporation

The following individuals are our executive officers as of January 28, 2011:

Mr. Miller is one of our Directors and has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer since 1997. Effective if and when our stockholders approve an amendment to our bylaws relating to the titles and functions of officers, Mr. Miller will cease to be our President, but will continue to serve as our Chief Executive Officer. Before 1997, Mr. Miller held various executive positions with us.

Mr. Beckwitt has served as our Executive Vice President since March 2006 and beginning January 12, 2011 was elected our President, subject to stockholders approval of an amendment to our bylaws. As our Executive Vice President, Mr. Beckwitt was involved in all operational aspects of our company. Mr. Beckwitt served on the Board of Directors of D.R. Horton, Inc. from 1993 to November 2003. From 1993 to March 2000, he held various executive officer positions at D.R. Horton, including President of the company. From March 2000 to April 2003, Mr. Beckwitt was the owner and principal of EVP Capital, L.P., (a venture capital and real estate advisory company). Mr. Beckwitt retired in May 2003 to design and personally construct a second home in Maine.

Mr. Jaffe has served as Vice President since 1994 and has served as our Chief Operating Officer since December 2004. Before that time, Mr. Jaffe served as a Regional President in our Homebuilding operations. Additionally, prior to his appointment as Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Jaffe was one of our Directors from 1997 through June 2004.

Mr. Gross has served as Vice President and our Chief Financial Officer since 1997. Before that, Mr. Gross was Senior Vice President, Controller and Treasurer of Pacific Greystone Corporation.

Ms. Bessette joined us in 1995 and served as our Controller from 1997 to 2008. Since February 2008, she has served as our Treasurer. She was appointed a Vice President in 2000.

Mr. Sustana has served as our Secretary and General Counsel since 2005.

Mr. Collins joined us in 1998 and has served as our Controller since February 2008. Before becoming Controller, Mr. Collins served as our Executive Director of Financial Reporting.

Item 2.    Properties.

We lease and maintain our executive offices in an office complex in Miami, Florida. Our homebuilding, financial services and Rialto Investments offices are located in the markets where we conduct business, primarily in leased space. We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current and planned levels of operation.

Because of the nature of our homebuilding operations, significant amounts of property are held as inventory in the ordinary course of our homebuilding business. We discuss these properties in the discussion of our homebuilding operations in Item 1 of this Report.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings.

We are party to various claims and lawsuits which arise in the ordinary course of business, but we do not consider the volume of our claims and lawsuits unusual given the number of homes we deliver and the fact that the lawsuits often relate to homes delivered several years before the lawsuits are commenced. Although the specific allegations in the lawsuits differ, they most commonly involve claims that we failed to construct homes in particular communities in accordance with plans and specifications or applicable construction codes and seek reimbursement for sums allegedly needed to remedy the alleged deficiencies, assert contract issues or relate to personal injuries. Lawsuits of these types are common within the homebuilding industry. We are a plaintiff in many cases in which we seek contribution from our subcontractors for home repair costs. The costs incurred by us in construction defect lawsuits are offset by warranty reserves, our third party insurers, subcontractor insurers and indemnity contributions from subcontractors. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims or lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. From time-to-time, we also receive notices from environmental agencies regarding alleged violations of environmental laws. We typically settle these matters before they reach litigation for amounts that are not material to us.

In April 2008, we were named as a nominal defendant in a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, entitledDoris Staehr, Derivatively on Behalf of Lennar Corporation v. Stuart A. Miller, et al., Case No. 08-20990-CIV, in which the plaintiff purports to assert claims for our benefit against some of our current and former officers and directors, primarily relating to allegedly inadequate or incorrect disclosures about the likelihood of a decline in the housing market and the effects it would have on us. Because the suit was allegedly brought for our benefit, it did not seek any damages from us. In August 2008, we moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to make a demand on our directors that under most circumstances is a prerequisite to a derivative suit. The director defendants moved to dismiss for that and other reasons. On March 31, 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.

Item 4.    Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.    Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Our Class A and Class B common stock are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbols “LEN” and “LEN.B,” respectively. The following table shows the high and low sales prices for our Class A and Class B common stock for the periods indicated, as reported by the NYSE, and cash dividends declared per share:

As of December 31, 2010, the last reported sale price of our Class A common stock was $18.75 and the last reported sale price of our Class B common stock was $15.57. As of December 31, 2010, there were approximately 970 and 700 holders of record, respectively, of our Class A and Class B common stock.

On January 12, 2011, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.04 per share for both our Class A and Class B common stock, which is payable on February 8, 2011 to holders of record at the close of business on January 25, 2011. Our Board of Directors evaluates each quarter the decision whether to declare a dividend and the amount of the dividend.

In June 2001, our Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase program to permit future purchases of up to 20 million shares of our outstanding common stock. During the three months and year ended November 30, 2010, there were no shares repurchased under this program.

The information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K is provided in Item 12 of this Report.

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the five-year cumulative total return of our Class A common stock with the Dow Jones U.S. Home Construction Index and the Dow Jones U.S. Total Market Index. The graph assumes $100 invested on November 30, 2005 in our Class A common stock, the Dow Jones U.S. Home Construction Index and the Dow Jones U.S. Total Market Index, and the reinvestment of all dividends.

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return

Fiscal Year Ended November 30

(2005=$100)

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data.

The following table sets forth our selected consolidated financial and operating information as of or for each of the years ended November 30, 2006 through 2010. The information presented below is based upon our historical financial statements.

Item 7.    Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with “Selected Financial Data” and our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included elsewhere in this Report.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Some of the statements in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, are “forward-looking statements,” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, strategies and prospects. You can identify forward-looking statements by the fact that these statements do not relate strictly to historical or current matters. Rather, forward-looking statements relate to anticipated or expected events, activities, trends or results. Because forward-looking statements relate to matters that have not yet occurred, these statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. Many factors could cause our actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements. These factors include those described under the caption “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Report. We do not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements, except as required by Federal securities laws.

Outlook

During our 2010 fiscal year, we continued to see a housing market that was trying to stabilize. This stabilization process was impacted by the expiration of the Federal homebuyer tax credit at the end of April 2010, which contributed to a reduction in the pace of home sales. The rate at which homes sold nationally was also adversely affected by high unemployment, lenders’ effort to sell foreclosed homes, tight lending standards and low consumer confidence. All these factors contributed to a 5% decline in our new orders during our 2010 fiscal year compared with prior year. Overall, recovery of the housing market is still sporadic, and how long it will take for the housing market to return to historical conditions is uncertain.

We have remained focused on improving our core business and we returned to profitability in 2010. Our principal focus in our homebuilding operations is on maintaining and improving our gross profit margin on the homes we sell. We have taken steps over the past several years to reduce costs and right-size our overhead structure. We have also repositioned our product offering to target first-time and value-focused homebuyers, the result of which has only recently begun to be reflected in our operating results. We continue to make carefully underwritten strategic land acquisitions in well-positioned markets that will support our homebuilding operations going forward. As a result, we are beginning to open communities with land that we purchased relatively recently at prices that reflect the recent depressed state of the market with respect to land that is suitable for residential homebuilding.

Our Rialto Investments (“Rialto”) segment added significant profits to our bottom line, generating operating earnings of $24.2 million (net of $33.2 million of net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests) in year ended November 30, 2010. During our 2010 fiscal year, we acquired for $243 million, a 40% interest (with the FDIC holding the other 60%) in a pool of real estate loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of approximately $3 billion acquired by the FDIC from 22 failed banks, and acquired for approximately $310 million, portfolios of mortgage loans and REO from three financial institutions. In the fourth quarter, we also completed the first closing of our Rialto real estate investment fund (the “Fund”) with initial equity commitments of approximately $300 million (including $75 million committed by us). Through the Fund, we will continue to invest in distressed opportunities that we expect will contribute to our future earnings.

Although high unemployment, tight lending standards and low consumer confidence continue to present challenges for the housing market, we believe that 2011 will be another profitable year. We believe that our homebuilding operations are on track to achieving sustainable profitability as the housing market stabilizes and ultimately recovers and our financial services and Rialto Investments segments will continue to enhance our earnings.

Results of Operations

Overview

Our net earnings attributable to Lennar in 2010 were $95.3 million, or $0.51 per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss attributable to Lennar of $417.1 million, or $2.45 per basic and diluted share, in 2009. Our gross margin percentage improved in 2010, compared to 2009, primarily due to a reduction in valuation adjustments and reduced sales incentives offered to homebuyers as a percentage of revenues from home sales.

The following table sets forth financial and operational information for the years indicated related to our operations.

2010 versus 2009

Revenues from home sales decreased 5% in the year ended November 30, 2010 to $2.6 billion from $2.8 billion in 2009. Revenues were lower primarily due to a 5% decrease in the number of home deliveries, excluding unconsolidated entities. New home deliveries, excluding unconsolidated entities, decreased to 10,859 homes in the year ended November 30, 2010 from 11,422 homes last year. The average sales price of homes delivered for both the years ended November 30, 2010 and 2009 was $243,000. Sales incentives offered to homebuyers were $32,800 per home delivered in the year ended November 30, 2010, or 11.9% as a percentage of home sales revenue, compared to $44,800 per home delivered in the prior year, or 15.6% as a percentage of home sales revenue.

Gross margins on home sales were $517.9 million, or 19.7%, in the year ended November 30, 2010, which included $44.7 million of valuation adjustments, compared to gross margins on home sales of $252.0 million, or 9.1%, in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $180.2 million of valuation adjustments. Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments were $562.6 million, or 21.4%, in the year ended November 30, 2010, compared to $432.2 million, or 15.6%, in 2009. Gross margin percentage on home sales, excluding valuation adjustments, improved compared to last year, due primarily to reduced sales incentives offered to homebuyers as a percentage of revenues from home sales, reduced construction costs and product re-engineering, as well as third-party recoveries related to Chinese drywall. Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments is a non-GAAP financial measure, which is discussed in the Non-GAAP Financial Measure section.

Selling, general and administrative expenses were reduced by $72.3 million, or 16%, in the year ended November 30, 2010, compared to the same period last year, primarily due to reductions in legal, personnel and occupancy expenses. As a percentage of revenues from home sales, selling, general and administrative expenses improved to 14.3% in the year ended November 30, 2010, from 16.2% in 2009.

Gross profits on land sales totaled $21.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2010, primarily due to the reduction of an obligation related to a profit participation agreement. Gross profits on land sales were net of $3.4 million of valuation adjustments and $3.1 million in write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisitions costs. Losses on land sales totaled $178.8 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $108.9 million of valuation adjustments and $84.4 million in write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisition costs.

Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities was $11.0 million in the year ended November 30, 2010, which included $10.5 million of valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which we have investments. In the year ended November 30, 2009, Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities was $130.9 million, which included $101.9 million of valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which we have investments.

Lennar Homebuilding other income (expense), net, totaled $19.1 million in the year ended November 30, 2010, which included a $19.4 million pre-tax gain on the extinguishment of other debt and other income, partially offset by a $10.8 million pre-tax loss related to the repurchase of senior notes through a tender offer and $1.7 million of valuation adjustments to our investments in unconsolidated entities. Lennar Homebuilding other income (expense), net, totaled ($98.4) million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $89.0 million of valuation adjustments to our investments in unconsolidated entities and $9.7 million of write-offs of notes and other receivables.

Homebuilding interest expense was $143.9 million in the year ended November 30, 2010 ($71.5 million was included in cost of homes sold, $2.0 million in cost of land sold and $70.4 million in other interest expense), compared to $147.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2009 ($67.4 million was included in cost of homes sold, $9.2 million in cost of land sold and $70.9 million in other interest expense). Despite an increase in debt, interest expense decreased primarily due to an increase in qualifying assets eligible for interest capitalization and savings resulting from the termination of our senior unsecured revolving credit facility during the first quarter of 2010.

Net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests were $25.2 million and ($28.9) million, respectively, in the years ended November 30, 2010 and 2009. Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests during the year ended November 30, 2010 were primarily related to the FDIC’s interest in the portfolio of real estate loans that we acquired in partnership with the FDIC.

Sales of land, Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities, other income (expense), net and net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests may vary significantly from period to period depending on the timing of land sales and other transactions entered into by the Company and unconsolidated entities in which it has investments.

Operating earnings for the Lennar Financial Services segment were $31.3 million in the year ended November 30, 2010, compared to $36.0 million in the same period last year. The decrease in operating earnings was primarily due to decreased volume in the segment’s mortgage and title operations.

In the year ended November 30, 2010, operating earnings for the Rialto Investments segment were $57.3 million (which included $33.2 million of net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests), compared to an operating loss of $2.5 million in the prior year. In the year ended November 30, 2010, revenues in this segment were $92.6 million, which consisted primarily of accretable interest income associated with the portfolios of real estate loans acquired in partnership with the FDIC. In the year ended November 30, 2010, other income, net was $17.3 million, which consisted primarily of gains on the sale of real estate owned (“REO”) and gains from acquisition of REO through foreclosure. The segment also had equity in earnings from unconsolidated entities of $15.4 million during the year ended November 30, 2010, consisting primarily of interest income and unrealized gains related to our investment in the AllianceBernstein L.P. (“AB”) fund formed under the Federal government’s Public-Private Investment Program (“PPIP”). In the year ended November 30, 2010, expenses in this segment were $67.9 million, which consisted primarily of the carrying costs related to its portfolio operations, underwriting expenses related to both completed and abandoned transactions, and other general and administrative expenses.

Corporate general and administrative expenses were reduced by $23.6 million, or 20%, in the year ended November 30, 2010, compared to the same period last year primarily due to our cost reduction initiatives implemented during the downturn. As a percentage of total revenues, corporate general and administrative expenses decreased to 3.1% in the year ended November 30, 2010, from 3.8% in the prior year.

A reduction of the carrying amounts of deferred tax assets by a valuation allowance is required if, based on available evidence, it is more likely than not that such assets will not be realized. Based upon an evaluation of all available evidence, during the year ended November 30, 2010, we recorded a reversal of the deferred tax asset valuation allowance of $37.9 million, primarily due to the recording of a deferred tax liability from the issuance of 2.75% convertible senior notes due 2020 and the net earnings generated during the year. The reversal of the deferred tax asset valuation allowance related to the issuance of the 2.75% convertible senior notes due 2020 was recorded as an adjustment to additional paid-in capital. At November 30, 2010, the deferred tax asset valuation allowance was $609.5 million.

At November 30, 2010, we owned 84,482 homesites and had access to an additional 19,974 homesites through either option contracts with third parties or agreements with unconsolidated entities in which we have investments. At November 30, 2010, 2% of the homesites we owned were subject to home purchase contracts. Our backlog of sales contracts was 1,604 homes ($407.3 million) at November 30, 2010, compared to 1,631 homes ($479.6 million) at November 30, 2009.

2009 versus 2008

Revenues from home sales decreased 33% in the year ended November 30, 2009 to $2.8 billion from $4.2 billion in 2008. Revenues were lower primarily due to a 26% decrease in the number of home deliveries, excluding unconsolidated entities, and a 10% decrease in the average sales price of homes delivered in 2009. New home deliveries, excluding unconsolidated entities, decreased to 11,422 homes in the year ended November 30, 2009 from 15,344 homes in 2008. In the year ended November 30, 2009, new home deliveries were lower in each of our Lennar Homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other, compared to 2008. The average sales price of homes delivered decreased to $243,000 in the year ended November 30, 2009 from $270,000 in 2008. Sales incentives offered to homebuyers were $44,800 per home delivered in the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to $48,700 per home delivered in 2008.

Gross margins on home sales were $252.0 million, or 9.1%, in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $180.2 million of valuation adjustments, compared to gross margins on home sales of $509.6 million, or 12.3%, in the year ended November 30, 2008, which included $195.5 million of valuation adjustments. Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments were $432.2 million, or 15.6%, in the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to $705.1 million, or 17.0%, in 2008. Gross margin percentage on home sales, excluding valuation adjustments, decreased compared to 2008, due primarily to reduced sales prices.

Selling, general and administrative expenses were reduced by $206.0 million, or 31%, in the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to 2008, primarily due to reductions in associate headcount, variable selling expenses and fixed costs. As a percentage of revenues from home sales, selling, general and administrative expenses increased to 16.2% in the year ended November 30, 2009, from 15.8% in 2008, due to lower revenues.

Losses on land sales totaled $178.8 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $108.9 million of valuation adjustments and $84.4 million of write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisition costs related to homesites under option that we did not intend to purchase. In the year ended November 30, 2008, losses on land sales totaled $133.2 million, which included $47.8 million of valuation adjustments and $97.2 million of write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisition costs related to homesites that were under option.

Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities was $130.9 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $101.9 million of valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which we have investments, compared to Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities of $59.2 million in the year ended November 30, 2008, which included $32.2 million of valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which we have investments.

Lennar Homebuilding other expense, net totaled $98.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $89.0 million of valuation adjustments to our investments in unconsolidated entities and $9.7 million of write-offs of notes and other receivables, compared to Lennar Homebuilding other expense, net of $172.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2008, which included $172.8 million of valuation adjustments to our investments in unconsolidated entities and $25.0 million of write-offs of notes and other receivables.

Homebuilding interest expense was $147.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2009 ($67.4 million was included in cost of homes sold, $9.2 million in cost of land sold and $70.9 million in other interest expense), compared to $130.4 million in the year ended November 30, 2008 ($99.3 million was included in cost of homes sold, $3.4 million in cost of land sold and $27.6 million in other interest expense). Despite a decrease in deliveries during the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to 2008, interest expense increased primarily due to the interest related to the $400 million 12.25% senior notes due 2017 issued during the second quarter of 2009, as well as a reduction in qualifying assets eligible for interest capitalization as a result of a decrease in inventories from prior year.

Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests was $28.9 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which included $13.6 million of noncontrolling interest income as a result of $27.2 million of valuation adjustments to inventories of 50%-owned consolidated joint ventures, compared to net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests of $4.1 million in the year ended November 30, 2008.

Sales of land, Lennar Homebuilding equity in loss from unconsolidated entities, other income (expense), net and net earnings (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests may vary significantly from period to period depending on the timing of land sales and other transactions entered into by us and unconsolidated entities in which we have investments.

Operating earnings for the Lennar Financial Services segment was $36.0 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to an operating loss of $31.0 million in 2008. The increase in profitability in the Lennar Financial Services segment was primarily due to lower fixed costs as a result of successful cost reduction initiatives implemented throughout the downturn. In addition, in the year ended November 30, 2008, there was a $27.2 million write-off of goodwill related to the segment’s mortgage operations, compared to no write-off in the year ended November 30, 2009.

Operating loss for the Rialto Investments segment was $2.5 million in the year ended November 30, 2009, which related primarily to general and administrative expenses incurred to start up the Rialto Investments segment.

Corporate general and administrative expenses were reduced by $12.2 million, or 9%, for the year ended November 30, 2009, compared to 2008. As a percentage of total revenues, corporate general and administrative expenses increased to 3.8% in the year ended November 30, 2009, from 2.8% in 2008, due to lower revenues.

As a result of our net operating loss during the year ended November 30, 2009, we generated deferred tax assets of $269.6 million and recorded a non-cash valuation allowance against the entire amount of the deferred tax assets. In addition, we recorded a reversal of our deferred tax asset valuation allowance of $351.8 million during the fourth quarter of 2009, primarily due to a change in tax legislation, which allowed us to carry back our fiscal year 2009 tax loss to recover previously paid income taxes.

At November 30, 2009, we owned 82,703 homesites and had access to an additional 21,173 homesites through either option contracts with third parties or agreements with unconsolidated entities in which we have investments. At November 30, 2009, 2% of the homesites we owned were subject to home purchase contracts. Our backlog of sales contracts was 1,631 homes ($479.6 million) at November 30, 2009, compared to 1,599 homes ($456.3 million) at November 30, 2008.

Non-GAAP Financial Measure

Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments is a non-GAAP financial measure, and is defined by us as sales of homes revenue less cost of homes sold excluding valuation adjustments recorded during the period. Management finds this to be an important and useful measure in evaluating our performance because it discloses the profit we generate on homes we actually delivered during the period, as our valuation adjustments generally relate to inventory that we did not deliver during the period. Gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments also is important to our management, because it assists our management in making strategic decisions regarding our construction pace, product mix and product pricing based upon the profitability we generated on homes we actually delivered during previous periods. We believe investors also find gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments to be important and useful because it discloses a profitability measure on homes we actually delivered in a period that can be compared to the profitability on homes we delivered in a prior period without regard to the variability of valuation adjustments recorded from period to period. In addition, to the extent that our competitors provide similar information, disclosure of our gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments helps readers of our financial statements compare our ability to generate profits with regard to the homes we deliver in a period to our competitors’ ability to generate profits with regard to the homes they deliver in the same period.

Although management finds gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments to be an important measure in conducting and evaluating our operations, this measure has limitations as an analytical tool as it is not reflective of the actual profitability generated by our company during the period. This is because it excludes charges we recorded relating to inventory that was impaired during the period. In addition, because gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments is a financial measure that is not calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), it may not be completely comparable to similarly titled measures of our competitors due to differences in methods of calculation and charges being excluded. Our management compensates for the limitations of using gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments by using this non-GAAP measure only to supplement our GAAP results in order to provide a more complete understanding of the factors and trends affecting our operations. In order to analyze our overall performance and actual profitability relative to our homebuilding operations, we also compare our gross margins on home sales during the period, inclusive of valuation adjustments, with the same measure during prior comparable periods. Due to the limitations discussed above, gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments should not be viewed in isolation as it is not a substitute for GAAP measures of gross margins.

The table set forth below reconciles our gross margins on home sales excluding valuation adjustments for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008 to our gross margins on home sales for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008:

Homebuilding Segments

Our Homebuilding operations construct and sell homes primarily for first-time, move-up and active adult homebuyers primarily under the Lennar brand name. In addition, our homebuilding operations also purchase, develop and sell land to third parties. In certain circumstances, we diversify our operations through strategic alliances and attempt to minimize our risks by investing with third parties in joint ventures.

We have grouped our homebuilding activities into four reportable segments, which we refer to as Homebuilding East, Homebuilding Central, Homebuilding West and Homebuilding Houston. Information about homebuilding activities in states that do not have economic characteristics that are similar to those in other states in the same geographic area is grouped under “Homebuilding Other.” Reference in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations to homebuilding segments are to those reportable segments.

At November 30, 2010, our reportable homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other consisted of homebuilding divisions located in:

East:Florida, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia.

Central: Arizona, Colorado and Texas. (1)

West:California and Nevada.

Houston: Houston, Texas.

Other: Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The following tables set forth selected financial and operational information related to our homebuilding operations for the years indicated:

Selected Financial and Operational Data

		Years Ended November 30,
		2010				2009				2008
		(In thousands)
Operating earnings (loss):
East:
Sales of homes		$	122,235				(70,878	)			(37,361	)
Sales of land			1,042				(92,968	)			(41,242	)
Equity in loss from unconsolidated entities			(871	)			(5,660	)			(31,422	)
Other income (expense), net			12,962				(11,900	)			(37,633	)
Other interest expense			(22,376	)			(24,847	)			(9,376	)
Total East			112,992				(206,253	)			(157,034	)
Central:
Sales of homes			(7,910	)			(39,309	)			(67,124	)
Sales of land			(353	)			406				(11,330	)
Equity in loss from unconsolidated entities			(4,727	)			(8,143	)			(1,310	)
Other expense, net			(2,261	)			(13,371	)			(9,954	)
Other interest expense			(10,661	)			(10,223	)			(5,369	)
Total Central			(25,912	)			(70,640	)			(95,087	)
West:
Sales of homes			4,019				(80,294	)			(67,757	)
Sales of land			16,502				(48,125	)			(74,987	)
Equity in loss from unconsolidated entities			(6,113	)			(114,373	)			(25,113	)
Other income (expense), net			5,451				(66,568	)			(100,597	)
Other interest expense			(25,720	)			(21,710	)			(8,339	)
Gain on recapitalization of unconsolidated entity			—				—				133,097
Total West			(5,861	)			(331,070	)			(143,696	)
Houston:
Sales of homes			25,138				25,854				39,897
Sales of land			1,683				(3,424	)			807
Equity in earnings (loss) from unconsolidated entities			766				(1,801	)			(920	)
Other income (expense), net			1,413				(900	)			(978	)
Other interest expense			(2,970	)			(3,287	)			—
Total Houston			26,030				16,442				38,806
Other:
Sales of homes			(2,523	)			(32,632	)			(13,283	)
Sales of land			2,483				(34,731	)			(6,463	)
Equity in loss from unconsolidated entities			(21	)			(940	)			(391	)
Other income (expense), net			1,570				(5,686	)			(23,226	)
Other interest expense			(8,698	)			(10,783	)			(4,509	)
Total Other			(7,189	)			(84,772	)			(47,872	)
Total homebuilding operating earnings (loss)		$	100,060				(676,293	)			(404,883	)

Summary of Homebuilding Data

Deliveries:

Of the total home deliveries above, 96, 56 and 391, respectively, represent deliveries from unconsolidated entities for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Of the total dollar value of home deliveries above, $61.0 million, $46.4 million and $204.5 million, respectively, represent the dollar value of home deliveries from unconsolidated entities for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008. The home deliveries from unconsolidated entities had an average sales price of $635,000, $828,000 and $523,000, respectively, for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Sales Incentives (1):

New Orders (2):

Of the new orders above, 90, 58 and 174, respectively, represent new orders from unconsolidated entities for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Of the total dollar value of new orders above, $55.9 million, $41.5 million and $97.5 million, respectively, represent the dollar value of new orders from unconsolidated entities for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008. The new orders from unconsolidated entities had an average sales price of $621,000, $716,000 and $560,000, respectively, for the years ended November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Backlog:

Of the total homes in backlog above, 3 homes, 9 homes and 8 homes, respectively, represent homes in backlog from unconsolidated entities at November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Of the total dollar value of homes in backlog above, $2.1 million, $7.2 million and $12.5 million, respectively, represent the dollar value of homes in backlog from unconsolidated entities at November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008. The homes in backlog from unconsolidated entities had an average sales price of $716,000, $804,000 and $1,558,000, respectively, at November 30, 2010, 2009 and 2008.

Backlog represents the number of homes under sales contracts. Homes are sold using sales contracts, which are generally accompanied by sales deposits. In some instances, purchasers are permitted to cancel sales if they fail to qualify for financing or under certain other circumstances. We experienced cancellation rates in our homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other as follows: