COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
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, 2017 and 2016, unfunded loan commitments approximated $233.2 million and $182.9 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. 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 or sell securities at September 30, 2017 or September 30, 2016. 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 $5.7 million and $5.8 million at September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $3.8 million and $3.4 million at September 30, 2017, and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits. Legal Proceedings 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 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 in fiscal year 2016. 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 $4,001,025. 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 and litigation routine to the Company's or its subsidiaries' respective businesses, there are no other new material pending legal proceedings or updates to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party.

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, 2017 and 2016, unfunded loan commitments approximated $233.2 million and $182.9 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. 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 or sell securities at September 30, 2017 or September 30, 2016.

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 $5.7 million and $5.8 million at September 30, 2017 and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for public funds on deposit. Securities with fair values of approximately $3.8 million and $3.4 million at September 30, 2017, and 2016, respectively, were pledged as collateral for individual, trust and estate deposits.

Legal Proceedings

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 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 in fiscal year 2016. 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 $4,001,025. 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 and litigation routine to the Company's or its subsidiaries' respective businesses, there are no other new material pending legal proceedings or updates to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party.