| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries or regulatory actions related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters, including the matters described below. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. For other litigation for which a loss is reasonably possible, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable developments and resolutions could occur and even cases brought by us can involve counterclaims asserted against us. In addition, litigation and other legal matters, including class action lawsuits and regulatory proceedings challenging practices that have broad impact, can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle. Insurance coverage may be unavailable for certain types of claims (including antitrust and Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation) and even where available, insurance carriers may dispute coverage for various reasons, including the cost of defense, there is a deductible for each such case, and such insurance may not be sufficient to cover the losses the Company incurs. From time to time, even if the Company believes it has substantial defenses, it may consider litigation settlements based on a variety of circumstances. Due to the foregoing factors as well as the factors set forth below, the Company could incur charges or judgments or enter into settlements of claims, based upon future events or developments, with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these judgments or settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period. As such, an increase in accruals for one or more of these matters in any reporting period may have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for that period. The below captioned matters address certain current litigation involving the Company, including antitrust litigation, litigation related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and worker classification litigation. The captioned matters described herein involve evolving, complex litigation and the Company assesses its accruals on an ongoing basis taking into account the procedural stage and developments in the litigation. One of the antitrust matters (the Burnett litigation) is scheduled to go to trial in late February 2023 and the TCPA case is scheduled to go to trial in April 2023. The Company disputes the allegations against it in each of these matters, believes it has substantial defenses against plaintiffs' claims and is vigorously defending these actions. Additionally, the Company has provided an update on the settlement of certain company-initiated litigation and related counterclaims against us. All of these matters are presented as currently captioned, but as noted elsewhere in this Quarterly Report, Realogy Holdings Corp. has been renamed Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Antitrust Litigation The cases included under this header, Antitrust Litigation, are class actions that challenge residential real estate industry rules and practices for seller payment of buyer broker commissions. The issues raised by these cases have not been previously adjudicated, and the cases are pending in multiple jurisdictions, are at various stages of litigation, claim to cover lengthy periods, involve different assertions with respect to liability and damages, include federal and certain state law claims, involve numerous and differing parties, and—given that antitrust laws generally provide for joint and several liability and treble damages—could result in a broad range of outcomes, making it difficult to predict possible damages or how legal, factual and damages issues will be resolved. These factors also complicate the potential for achieving settlement in individual cases or any global multi-party settlement although the Company believes, given the industry-wide impacts of the issues being litigated, potential resolution options should be considered. The Company believes that additional antitrust litigation may be possible depending on decisions in pending litigation or regulatory developments affecting the industry. In each of these cases, plaintiffs claim damages for all or a meaningful portion of the buyer brokers’ commission paid in each transaction irrespective of the fact that the Company retained relatively little of those commissions (as the vast majority of the commission remained with the independent sales agent and/or franchisee, as applicable). Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a now-certified class action complaint, which was filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May 6, 2022 (formerly captioned as Sitzer ). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require listing brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that “but for” the challenged NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer broker compensation would not be made and plaintiffs seek the recovery of any commissions paid to buyers’ brokers as to both brokerage and franchised operations in the relevant geographic area. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring their respective brokerages/franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies, rules, and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying buyer broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation. Plaintiffs’ experts dispute defendants’ contention that the practice of offering and paying buyer broker compensation is based on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and also contend that international practices are comparable benchmarks. The antitrust claims in the Burnett litigation are limited both in allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29, 2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four MLSs that primarily serve the State of Missouri, purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or from otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble damages. In addition, the plaintiffs include a cause of action for alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period that commences April 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in conduct in violation of the MMPA, an award of damages and/or restitution for the class period, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ motions to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and on October 16, 2019, the Court denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July 2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all materials produced in this matter. The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022. The Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 2, 2022. The class the Court has certified includes, according to plaintiffs, over 310,000 transactions for which the plaintiffs are seeking a full refund of the buyer brokers’ commissions. Each of the five defendants, including the Company, filed motions for summary judgment on August 29, 2022, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to the motions on October 10, 2022. Defendants’ replies are due on November 7, 2022 and oral argument on the summary judgment motions is scheduled for November 17, 2022. The Court has set a trial date for February 21, 2023, and the Company does not expect significant changes to that schedule. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs’ claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Ramey, Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). The Moehrl complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Burnett litigation. The Moehrl complaint, however, is brought on behalf of home sellers in 20 MLSs in various parts of the country that do not overlap with the Burnett MLSs and purports to cover transactions beginning from March 6, 2015 through December 31, 2020. In contrast to the Burnett plaintiffs, the Moehrl plaintiffs acknowledge that there are economic reasons why a seller would offer buyer compensation (and accordingly, do not seek recovery of all commissions paid to buyers’ brokers), although plaintiffs allege that buyer brokers are overpaid due to the mandatory nature of the applicable NAR policies and rules. In October 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest for this matter. A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an interim basis by the Court in May 2020. In October 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019 by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint). Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 23, 2022. The Company’s opposition to the plaintiffs' class certification motion was filed on May 31, 2022 (together with the other defendants named in the complaint) and plaintiffs’ reply in further support of their motion was filed on August 22, 2022; plaintiffs’ motion for class certification remains pending. Discovery in the case is ongoing. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs’ claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as Leeder ), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, as well as those at issue in the 2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On May 2, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) without prejudice. On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in eight new named plaintiffs and no longer naming Leeder as named plaintiff, that may consequently be referred to as Batton v. The National Association of Realtors, et al . The amended complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint but, in addition to the federal Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs have added two claims based on certain state antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes. The Company (together with the other companies named in the complaint) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 7, 2022. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was filed October 21, 2022, with the defendants’ reply due on November 22, 2022. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020 (formerly captioned as Bauman ), wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service (MLS Property Information Network, Inc . ) that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of the Company's company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants named in the complaint). On March 1, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting in two new named plaintiffs and no longer naming the Baumans as named plaintiffs, that may consequently be referred to as Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc . The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who paid a broker commission in connection with the sale of a property listed in the MLS Property Information Network, Inc. Discovery in the case has commenced. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and is vigorously defending this litigation. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division). In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, against Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Anywhere Intermediate Holdings LLC (f/k/a Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC), Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Group LLC ), Anywhere Real Estate Services Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Services Group LLC), and Anywhere Advisors LLC (f/k/a Realogy Brokerage Group LLC and NRT LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, plaintiffs allege that independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using dialers provided by Mojo and others. Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or Prerecorded Message class. In March 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification for the foregoing classes as to the Anywhere defendants but not as to co-defendant Mojo and dismissed Mojo from the case. Plaintiffs and the Anywhere defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment were denied without prejudice on May 11, 2022. The Company's petition for permission to appeal the class certification filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was denied and the plaintiffs’ class notice plan was approved on May 26, 2022. On October 24, 2022, the Court moved the trial date to April 2023. A mediation between the parties in August 2022 did not result in resolution of this matter. While the Company may pursue further attempts at mediation, it can provide no assurance as to whether any such mediation would be successful. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs’ claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this action. Worker Classification Litigation Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County). This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys’ fees. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff's amended complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave to replead. In January 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order granting the demurrer and filed its brief in support of the appeal in June 2021. In October 2021, Century 21 and Century 21 M&M filed their appellate brief in opposition to plaintiff’s appeal and in January 2022, plaintiff filed its reply brief in support of the appeal. In September 2022, Century 21 and Century 21 M&M filed a motion with the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal in favor of arbitration in response to a recent change in the law, which the plaintiff opposed. This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties. Company-Initiated Litigation and Related Counterclaims Realogy Holdings Corp., NRT New York LLC (d/b/a The Corcoran Group), Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC, NRT West, Inc., Martha Turner Properties, L.P. And Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC v. Urban Compass, Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Supreme Court New York, New York County). In October 2022, the Company and Urban Compass, Inc. and Compass, Inc. (together, "Compass") entered into a confidential settlement agreement with respect to this matter and Compass' related counterclaims, and the actions were dismissed. Other Examples of other legal matters involving the Company may include but are not limited to allegations: • concerning antitrust and anti-competition matters; • concerning alleged violations of RESPA, state consumer fraud statutes, federal consumer protection statutes or other state real estate law violations; • that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by our company owned brokerages or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against our Owned Brokerage Group for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or make similar claims against Franchise Group as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents; • concerning other employment law matters, including other types of worker classification claims as well as wage and hour claims and retaliation claims; • concerning information security, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information; • concerning cyber-crime, including claims related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds; • that the Company is vicariously or jointly liable for the conduct of individuals or entities traditionally outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, under joint employer claims or other theories of actual or apparent agency; • by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations; • concerning claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including autodialer claims; • concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history; • related to intellectual property or copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder or claims challenging our trademarks; • concerning breach of obligations to make websites and other services accessible for consumers with disabilities; • concerning claims generally against the title agent contending that the agent knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or that the agent was negligent in addressing title defects or conducting the settlement; • related to disclosure or securities law violations as well as derivative suits; and • related to general fraud claims. Other ordinary course legal proceedings that may arise from time to time include those related to commercial arrangements, indemnification (under contract or common law), franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, claims under the False Claims Act (or similar state laws), consumer lending and debt collection law claims, employment law claims related to business actions responsive to the COVID-19 outbreak and governmental and regulatory directives thereto, state auction law, and violations of similar laws in countries where we operate around the world with respect to any of the foregoing. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common. While most litigation involves claims against the Company, from time to time the Company commences litigation, including litigation against former employees, franchisees and competitors when it alleges that such persons or entities have breached agreements or engaged in other wrongful conduct. * * * Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates Anywhere Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Anywhere Group, formerly referred to as Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Anywhere Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Anywhere Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant. The due to former parent balance was $20 million at September 30, 2022 and $19 million at December 31, 2021, respectively. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining contingent tax liabilities, (ii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iii) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations. Tax Matters The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain. Escrow and Trust Deposits As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $1,071 million at September 30, 2022 and while these deposits are not assets of the Company (and therefore are excluded from the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets), the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits. | | |
