COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit which are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. At September 30, 2016 and 2015, unfunded loan commitments approximated $182.9 million and $158.3 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Unfunded loan commitments at September 30, 2016 and 2015 were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are cancelled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract. The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2016. At September 30, 2015, the Company had two commitments to purchase securities available for sale totaling $7.9 million and three commitments to purchase securities held to maturity totaling $3.0 million. The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments. Management monitors several factors when estimating its allowance for uncollectible off-balance-sheet credit exposures, including, but not limited to, economic developments and historical loss rates. Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments. In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Securities with fair values of approximately $5.8 million at September 30, 2016 and 2015 were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $3.4 million and $14.8 million at September 30, 2016, and 2015, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits. Legal Proceedings The Company and the Bank were named as defendants, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372-JPO); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573-PAE); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The same defendants, including the Company and the Bank, were also named as defendants in an additional class action litigation commenced in another federal district court on April 13, 2016: (5) Smith v. UniRush LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-02533-SVW-E). The same defendants, including the Company and the Bank, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by an individual plaintiff in a Texas state court on June 24, 2016: (6) Jacobs v. UniRush LLC et al. (Harris County, Texas County Civ. Ct. Cause No. 1079432). The complaints in each of these six actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. In each case, the plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. In addition, the OCC and the CFPB are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is warranted. A settlement was negotiated with class counsel in actions (1)-(4) under which neither the Company nor the Bank made any payment. Notice of the settlement was given to the approximately 425,000 class members, of which 70 opted out from the class, but not a single objection to the settlement was filed, either by any potential class member or any of the regulatory agencies who received notice of the settlement. At a September 12, 2016 hearing in the lead class action case, action (1), the Court granted final approval of the settlement, certified the Settlement Class and entered final judgment for actions (1)-(4). In the interim, action (5) was settled for a nominal amount, with no payment by the Company or the Bank, and the case was formally resolved with the filing of a dismissal notice on July 15, 2016. At this time, the petition in action (6) specifically alleges that the maximum damages, costs and attorneys’ fees that plaintiff seeks do not exceed $74,000. The Bank was served on April 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card program manager and processor for both INB and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed Inter National Bank (“INB”) that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank is vigorously contesting this matter. In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal. Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of our position. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted. The Bank commenced action against C&B Farms, LLC, Dakota River Farms, LLC, Dakota Grain Farms, LLC, Heather Swenson and Tracy Clement in early July, 2015, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota, seeking to collect upon certain delinquent loans made in connection with the 2014 farming operations of the three identified limited liability companies and the personal guaranties of Swenson and Clement. The three companies and Clement answered the Complaint and asserted a counterclaim against the Bank and a third-party claim against the Bank’s loan officer, alleging fraud and misrepresentation, as well as promissory estoppel. On January 7, 2016, the Bank obtained a judgment for $6.1 million, the full amount due and owing on the delinquent loans, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and post-judgment interest. On February 25, 2016, the Court entered an order and judgment in favor of the Bank granting the Bank’s renewed motion for summary judgment as to counterclaims and third party claim. Tracy Clement, the primary guarantor of the C&B Farms, Dakota Grain Farms, and Dakota River Farms indebtedness has filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in Minnesota. The Bank is an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Bank still has the right to collect from the three limited liability company debtors (C&B, Dakota Grain, and Dakota River). However, the Bank believes each entity is now insolvent and the collateral recovered and liquidated to the extent possible. The Bank has also settled with the other personal guarantor, Heather Swenson. The Bank commenced action against Interstate Commodities, Inc., on February 1, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division. This matter arises out of the Bank’s loans to C&B Farms, which were guaranteed by Tracy Clement. The case alleges that Interstate Commodities has breached the terms of a subordination agreement entered into between Interstate Commodities and the Bank relating to the 2015 crops of C&B Farms, LLC. In March, 2015, the Bank sent a letter to C&B Farms and Interstate Commodities agreeing that the Bank would subordinate its first position lien in the farm products of C&B Farms once the Bank’s 2015 input advances in an agreed upon sum had been paid in full. Interstate Commodities entered into various agreements with C&B Farms in which they agreed to purchase grain at a future date and provided purchase price advance financing to C&B Farms. Interstate Commodities also partially performed under the subordination agreement by paying or allowing certain sums to flow back to the Bank to pay on the agreed upon inputs. Interstate Commodities terminated the payments to the Bank before allowing full repayment of the 2015 inputs financed by the Bank before the subordination agreement was reached. This large, non-performing agricultural relationship was partially charged off during fiscal year 2016 and has no remaining loan balance. The Bank was served on October 14, 2016, with a lawsuit captioned Card Limited, LLC v. MetaBank dba Meta Payment Systems, Civil No. 2:16-cv-00980 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This action was initiated by former prepaid program manager of the Bank, which was terminated by the Bank earlier this year. Card Limited alleges that after all of the programs have been wound down, there are two accounts with a positive balance to which they are entitled. The Bank’s position is that Card Limited is not entitled to the funds contained in said accounts. The total amount to which Card Limited claims it is entitled is $1,579,398. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted. Other than the matters set forth above, there are no other new material pending legal proceedings or updates to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party other than ordinary litigation routine to their respective businesses.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit which are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

At September 30, 2016 and 2015, unfunded loan commitments approximated $182.9 million and $158.3 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Unfunded loan commitments at September 30, 2016 and 2015 were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are cancelled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract.

The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2016. At September 30, 2015, the Company had two commitments to purchase securities available for sale totaling $7.9 million and three commitments to purchase securities held to maturity totaling $3.0 million.

The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments. Management monitors several factors when estimating its allowance for uncollectible off-balance-sheet credit exposures, including, but not limited to, economic developments and historical loss rates.

Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments. In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract.

Securities with fair values of approximately $5.8 million at September 30, 2016 and 2015 were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $3.4 million and $14.8 million at September 30, 2016, and 2015, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits.

Legal Proceedings

The Company and the Bank were named as defendants, along with other defendants, in four class action litigations commenced in three different federal district courts between October 23, 2015 and November 5, 2015: (1) Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08372-JPO); (2) Huff et al. v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:15-cv-02253-KJM-CMK); (3) Peterkin v. UniRush LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:15-cv-08573-PAE); and (4) Jones v. UniRush, LLC et al. (E.D. Pa. Case No. 5:15-cv-05996-JLS). The same defendants, including the Company and the Bank, were also named as defendants in an additional class action litigation commenced in another federal district court on April 13, 2016: (5) Smith v. UniRush LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-02533-SVW-E). The same defendants, including the Company and the Bank, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by an individual plaintiff in a Texas state court on June 24, 2016: (6) Jacobs v. UniRush LLC et al. (Harris County, Texas County Civ. Ct. Cause No. 1079432). The complaints in each of these six actions seek monetary damages for the alleged inability of customers of the prepaid card product RushCard to access the product for up to two weeks starting on or about October 12, 2015. In each case, the plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty and violations of various state consumer protection statutes prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or trade/business practices. In addition, the OCC and the CFPB are examining the events surrounding the allegations with respect to the Company and the other defendants, respectively. The OCC has broad supervisory powers with respect to the Bank and could seek to initiate supervisory action if it believes such action is warranted. A settlement was negotiated with class counsel in actions (1)-(4) under which neither the Company nor the Bank made any payment. Notice of the settlement was given to the approximately 425,000 class members, of which 70 opted out from the class, but not a single objection to the settlement was filed, either by any potential class member or any of the regulatory agencies who received notice of the settlement. At a September 12, 2016 hearing in the lead class action case, action (1), the Court granted final approval of the settlement, certified the Settlement Class and entered final judgment for actions (1)-(4). In the interim, action (5) was settled for a nominal amount, with no payment by the Company or the Bank, and the case was formally resolved with the filing of a dismissal notice on July 15, 2016. At this time, the petition in action (6) specifically alleges that the maximum damages, costs and attorneys’ fees that plaintiff seeks do not exceed $74,000.

The Bank was served on April 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card program manager and processor for both INB and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed Inter National Bank (“INB”) that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank is vigorously contesting this matter. In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal. Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of our position. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

The Bank commenced action against C&B Farms, LLC, Dakota River Farms, LLC, Dakota Grain Farms, LLC, Heather Swenson and Tracy Clement in early July, 2015, in the Third Judicial Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota, seeking to collect upon certain delinquent loans made in connection with the 2014 farming operations of the three identified limited liability companies and the personal guaranties of Swenson and Clement. The three companies and Clement answered the Complaint and asserted a counterclaim against the Bank and a third-party claim against the Bank’s loan officer, alleging fraud and misrepresentation, as well as promissory estoppel. On January 7, 2016, the Bank obtained a judgment for $6.1 million, the full amount due and owing on the delinquent loans, together with attorneys’ fees, costs and post-judgment interest. On February 25, 2016, the Court entered an order and judgment in favor of the Bank granting the Bank’s renewed motion for summary judgment as to counterclaims and third party claim. Tracy Clement, the primary guarantor of the C&B Farms, Dakota Grain Farms, and Dakota River Farms indebtedness has filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in Minnesota. The Bank is an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Bank still has the right to collect from the three limited liability company debtors (C&B, Dakota Grain, and Dakota River). However, the Bank believes each entity is now insolvent and the collateral recovered and liquidated to the extent possible. The Bank has also settled with the other personal guarantor, Heather Swenson. The Bank commenced action against Interstate Commodities, Inc., on February 1, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Central Division. This matter arises out of the Bank’s loans to C&B Farms, which were guaranteed by Tracy Clement. The case alleges that Interstate Commodities has breached the terms of a subordination agreement entered into between Interstate Commodities and the Bank relating to the 2015 crops of C&B Farms, LLC. In March, 2015, the Bank sent a letter to C&B Farms and Interstate Commodities agreeing that the Bank would subordinate its first position lien in the farm products of C&B Farms once the Bank’s 2015 input advances in an agreed upon sum had been paid in full. Interstate Commodities entered into various agreements with C&B Farms in which they agreed to purchase grain at a future date and provided purchase price advance financing to C&B Farms. Interstate Commodities also partially performed under the subordination agreement by paying or allowing certain sums to flow back to the Bank to pay on the agreed upon inputs. Interstate Commodities terminated the payments to the Bank before allowing full repayment of the 2015 inputs financed by the Bank before the subordination agreement was reached. This large, non-performing agricultural relationship was partially charged off during fiscal year 2016 and has no remaining loan balance.

The Bank was served on October 14, 2016, with a lawsuit captioned Card Limited, LLC v. MetaBank dba Meta Payment Systems, Civil No. 2:16-cv-00980 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This action was initiated by former prepaid program manager of the Bank, which was terminated by the Bank earlier this year. Card Limited alleges that after all of the programs have been wound down, there are two accounts with a positive balance to which they are entitled. The Bank’s position is that Card Limited is not entitled to the funds contained in said accounts. The total amount to which Card Limited claims it is entitled is $1,579,398. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

Other than the matters set forth above, there are no other new material pending legal proceedings or updates to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party other than ordinary litigation routine to their respective businesses.