COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Jun. 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 June 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, unfunded loan commitments approximated $158.1 million and $158.3 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. These unfunded loan commitments were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are canceled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract. At June 30, 2016, the Company had one commitment to purchase securities held-to-maturity totaling $20.9 million. 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 at September 30, 2015. The exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance 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. Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit and loans in process 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. Legal Proceedings The Company and the Bank have been 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 yet 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). More recently, 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. The plaintiffs allege 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 will make any payment, and on May 17, 2016 the Court filed an Order Certifying a Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving the Class Action Settlement, and Directing Notice to the Settlement Class. Notice has been given to the potential class members, and a final approval hearing for the settlement has been scheduled for September 12, 2016. Action (5) was recently 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. While action (6) was only recently commenced and is in its earliest stages, the petition specifically alleges that the maximum damages, costs and attorneys’ fees that plaintiff seeks do not exceed $74,000. The Company’s estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss for all six actions is approximately $0 to $0.1 million. 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. The amount in dispute is $481 thousand. 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 June 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, unfunded loan commitments approximated $158.1 million and $158.3 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. These unfunded loan commitments were principally for variable rate loans. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are canceled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract.

At June 30, 2016, the Company had one commitment to purchase securities held-to-maturity totaling $20.9 million. 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 at September 30, 2015.

The exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance 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.

Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit and loans in process 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.

Legal Proceedings

The Company and the Bank have been 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 yet 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). More recently, 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. The plaintiffs allege 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 will make any payment, and on May 17, 2016 the Court filed an Order Certifying a Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approving the Class Action Settlement, and Directing Notice to the Settlement Class. Notice has been given to the potential class members, and a final approval hearing for the settlement has been scheduled for September 12, 2016. Action (5) was recently 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. While action (6) was only recently commenced and is in its earliest stages, the petition specifically alleges that the maximum damages, costs and attorneys’ fees that plaintiff seeks do not exceed $74,000. The Company’s estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss for all six actions is approximately $0 to $0.1 million.

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. The amount in dispute is $481 thousand.

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.