Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Customer Risk Management Interest Rate Swap On September 9, 2014, we entered into an agreement to provide one of our commercial borrowers a customer interest rate swap that effectively converts the loan interest rate from a floating rate based on LIBOR to a fixed rate for the customer. As of June 30, 2016, the floating rate loan had an outstanding balance of $15.3 million. The option to execute the swap is conditional on the borrower’s compliance with the loan and swap agreements, and will be subject to the terms of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement. The fixed pay amount will be based on the market rates at the time of execution, and it is our intention to simultaneously execute an offsetting trade with an approved swap dealer counterparty with identical terms. Legal Action On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the “Ubaldi Case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs’ usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the “Notice”). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case. In the normal course of business, we are at all times subject to various pending and threatened legal actions. The relief or damages sought in some of these actions may be substantial. After reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, management currently does not expect that the outcome of such actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position; however, we are not able to predict whether the outcome of such actions may or may not have a material adverse effect on results of operations in a particular future period as the timing and amount of any resolution of such actions and relationship to the future results of operations are not known.

NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Customer Risk Management Interest Rate Swap

On September 9, 2014, we entered into an agreement to provide one of our commercial borrowers a customer interest rate swap that effectively converts the loan interest rate from a floating rate based on LIBOR to a fixed rate for the customer. As of June 30, 2016, the floating rate loan had an outstanding balance of $15.3 million. The option to execute the swap is conditional on the borrower’s compliance with the loan and swap agreements, and will be subject to the terms of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Master Agreement. The fixed pay amount will be based on the market rates at the time of execution, and it is our intention to simultaneously execute an offsetting trade with an approved swap dealer counterparty with identical terms.

Legal Action

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation (“Sallie Mae”), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the “Ubaldi Case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs’ usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the “Notice”). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case.

In the normal course of business, we are at all times subject to various pending and threatened legal actions. The relief or damages sought in some of these actions may be substantial. After reviewing pending and threatened actions with counsel, management currently does not expect that the outcome of such actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial position; however, we are not able to predict whether the outcome of such actions may or may not have a material adverse effect on results of operations in a particular future period as the timing and amount of any resolution of such actions and relationship to the future results of operations are not known.