watch the videoFirst National Bank
First national bank of north dakota -
Who We Are
Our customers have inspired us since our humble beginnings and have allowed us to be their hometown bank for many generations. We look forward to continuing that relationship for many more generations to come. HFB employees are proud of their deep roots in the communities we serve and are excited about cultivating those relationships in the future.
Upon receiving its official charter in December 1904, Horizon Financial Bank (Munich, ND) opened its doors in January 1905, as the First National Bank with Usher L. Burdick as the cashier and lender. A.U. Peterson was the assistant cashier and David H. Beecher was the president. The back of the original bank served as the Burdick residence while the front was used for banking transactions. This building was moved to make room for a brick facility in the summer of 1905 where the main bank offices remain today.
When the First National Bank of Hampden closed its doors on January 27, 1934, the First National Bank of Munich acquired the assets and liabilities of that bank at its present location in Munich. The bank received a Certificate of Incorporation, also called a Certificate of Authority, dated March 10, 1938, allowing the bank to change from a National bank to a State bank. At that time, the bank became known as The First State Bank of Munich.
On January 10, 1939, The First State Bank of Munich received a certificate from the State of North Dakota Department of Banking giving permission to establish the Starkweather paying and receiving station. On August 15, 1941, the same was received for Osnabrock.
The bank opened a new location in Devils Lake on September 2, 1997. On March 31, 2000, the Starkweather branch closed.
In September 2013, the bank was given the authorization to change its name from The First State Bank of Munich to Horizon Financial Bank. The bank name officially changed on December 9, 2013. The bank expanded into the Bismarck market with the opening of a new branch there on September 15, 2014.
Horizon Financial Bank has seen many renovations through the years in an effort to keep up with the times and house the technology necessary to serve its customers. When banking first started everything was done by hand; each check and deposit was handled individually. As technology emerged more machines entered the picture, but were still hand-driven. Now, in contrast, deposits can be made via a mobile device as well as in person and images of checks and deposits are retained electronically.
Community involvement has always been a priority for the bank. Contributing funds to help support youth activities, employee-funded scholarships, educational programs and various other community events through the years have proven to be a benefit for the communities served.
Through the generations, as buildings and faces have changed, the communities’ support has remained constant.
Everything you expect from a bank. And yet, fundamentally different.
Mobile banking app with over 100,000 5-star ratings
No minimum balance and easy-to-waive low fees1
Zero liability fraud protection2
Strongest environmental policies of any major US bank3
Led by a CEO who is among just 6% of female bank CEOs
Stability that comes with being part of BNP Paribas, the ninth largest bank on the planet
Relationships are at the core of everything we do, and that makes all the difference for our personal and business clients.
Founded as the Bank of Grand Forks, one of the first chartered in the Dakota Territory.
First National Bank in Grand Forks opened its doors in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Acquired Northwood State Bank in Northwood, North Dakota.
Created Employee Stock Ownership Plan for our employees.
Entered the Fargo market by purchasing West Fargo State Bank in West Fargo, North Dakota.
Purchased Dakota Bank in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
First National Bank in Grand Forks purchased the North Dakota branches of First Federal Savings & Loan in Fargo, North Dakota, and changed its name to First National Bank North Dakota.
Historic flood and fire devastated Grand Forks and First National Bank North Dakota’s buildings.
First National Bank North Dakota changed its name to Alerus Financial to reflect the evolution from a traditional bank to a diversified financial services company.
Acquired a branch of BNC National Bank in Fargo, North Dakota.
Purchased Pension Solutions, Inc., a retirement plan services company located in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Opened a trust and investment office in the Twin Cities; purchased Stanton Trust Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Opened a business banking office in Minnetonka, Minnesota; purchased the retirement recordkeeping services unit of Acclaim Benefits, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minnesota; acquired Stanton Investment Advisors, Inc., a Minneapolis-based investment advisory firm.
Expanded into Phoenix, Arizona; purchased the retirement plan practice of Eide Bailly, LLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota; acquired deposits from BankFirst in Minneapolis, Minnesota; acquired Prosperan Bank in Oakdale, Maplewood, and Minnetonka, Minnesota; acquired Residential Mortgage Group in Minnetonka and Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Acquired a branch in Arizona and selected loans and deposits in Minnesota and Arizona from BNC National Bank in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Purchased PensionTrend, Inc. and PensionTrend Investment Advisers, LLC, in Okemos, Michigan.
Purchased Tegrit Administrators, LLC.
Acquired InteracPurchased Private Bank Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota; purchased Retirement Alliance, Inc., in Manchester, New Hampshire. ive Retirement Systems, Ltd., in Bloomington, MN.
Purchased Interactive Retirement Systems, LTD, in Bloomington, Minnesota.
Purchased Beacon Bank in Shorewood, Excelsior, Eden Prairie, and Duluth, Minnesota; purchased Alliance Benefit Group North Central States, Inc., in Albert Lea, and Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Opened a loan production office in Mesa, Arizona.
Alerus offers initial public offering.
Retirement Plan Services, Inc., doing business as RPS Plan Administrators and 24HourFlex in Littleton, Colorado.
Welcome to The First National Bank of Gordon
We're Enhancing Our Online Experience!
We are very excited to be redesigning the
First National Bank of Gordon website (fnbgordon.com).
The website will have the same great services
you are used to seeing.
It will be easier to navigate and a wonderful addition
to your online banking experience.
Busy lives call for simple solutions
To access online banking from your phone or tablet
Find THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK GORDON Mobile App
In your Apple, Android or Google Play App Store
Office Location & Hours
134 North Main Street
PO Box 290
Gordon, NE 69343
Mon-Fri: 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM
Automated Teller Machine
24 Hour walk up ATM available at First National Bank
NIGHT DEPOSIT SERVICE FRONT AND BACK OF BANK
Building a Legacy, One Community at a Time
An enthusiastic beginning
The Starion Bank story is one of small-town principles, commitment to our communities and genuine concern for our customers.
Back in 1969, Frank Larson, a young Valley City lawyer, was introduced to banking when he became involved in the legal transactions of a bank sale. His interest sparked, he eagerly responded to a friend’s invitation to visit Oakes and tour the local bank for sale there.
The First National Bank of Oakes had been a cornerstone of the business community since being chartered in 1886, when Dakota was still a Territory. What Frank saw was a prosperous, thriving small town. Yet the eager faces of young store owners up and down Main Street stood in sharp contrast to the ultra-cautious businessmen running the bank and holding the reins on progress.
Seeing pent-up potential, Frank and JoAndrea Larson purchased the Oakes bank in 1969, and the First National Bank & Trust Company in Ellendale, ND, a year later. The Larsons placed their banks in the hands of managers with energy and enthusiasm and operated them for 20 years before purchasing the well-established First Southwest Bank of Mandan in 1989.
More branches and a new name
In 1993, the growing financial enterprise expanded across the river into North Dakota’s capital city, with the purchase of Northwestern Savings & Loan in downtown Bismarck. Two years later, the Larson banks merged into a single, state-chartered institution and took the name First Southwest Bank. The new company added branches in Bismarck-Mandan throughout the late 1990s and also began looking for new markets.
With even more far-reaching aspirations, the company looked for a new name. They wanted something that would work across a wider geographical region, and encompass a full line of financial services, including banking, mortgage, insurance and investments. We chose Starion Financial as our new name in 2003.
Our search for new markets led to Madison, Wis. We noticed similarities between Bismarck and Madison: both are state capital cities, highly regarded for quality of life, major healthcare hubs. And just as importantly, they have agrarian roots and strong Midwestern values.
Starion Financial opened a branch in Madison in 2006 and moved to our current building in Middleton in 2008. That same year, we expanded within North Dakota into the state’s largest city, Fargo, drawn by a strong community with a diverse economy and excellent upward potential.
Then in 2011, we added branches in the northern North Dakota communities of Dunseith, Rolla and Bottineau with our purchase of 106-year-old, family-owned Security State Bank. We also grew our presence in Wisconsin with the addition of branches in the Madison suburbs of Sun Prairie (2013) and Monona (2015).
Working hard to live up to our good name
Our history is a story of changing with the times, while keeping business practices that never need changing. We answer phones in person, entrust our experienced bankers to make local decisions and build lasting relationships with our customers with regard for their personal dreams.
We have been rewarded with phenomenal growth: from $5 million in assets at our bank in Oakes in 1969 to more than $1.6 billion among 16 locations in North Dakota and Wisconsin today.
But we’ve never forgotten what got us here. In small towns like the ones where we got our start, you are only as good as your reputation - and your reputation is only as good as your actions. That’s the kind of accountability we still demand from ourselves each and every day.
Gipson v. First National Bank of Bismarck
97 N.W.2d 671 (1959)
Elmer GIPSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BISMARCK, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
May 7, 1959.
*673 J. K. Murray, Bismarck, for plaintiff and respondent.
Cox, Pearce & Engebretson, Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.
This is an action by a bank depositor to recover from the defendant bank the sum of $1,396 that represents the total amount of 34 checks in various amounts, the smallest being $15 and the largest $125, which the plaintiff alleges to be forgeries that were negligently debited to the plaintiff's checking account between December 2, 1953 and February 27, 1954, inclusive. The checks were never produced. The bank records show that the plaintiff's statements of account with vouchers for the months of December, 1953 and January and February, 1954 were mailed to the plaintiff at his correct address in each instance during the first few days of the month following the month represented by each statement. The plaintiff testified that he never received or saw any of these statements, vouchers or checks.
It further appears that early in April, 1954 the plaintiff discovered that a number of checks that had been forged by one Walter Savenko had been charged against his account in March and April, 1954. Upon the suggestion of a bank official the plaintiff took Savenko to the bank. These forgeries were admitted. The checks were produced and the total amount of $730 was paid to the bank by Savenko and his mother and remitted by the bank to the plaintiff. These March and April checks are not involved in this case but they, together with other evidence, give rise to a strong inference that Savenko intercepted the plaintiff's statements of his bank account and canceled checks for the preceding December, January and February although on the witness stand he denied doing so.
On May 15, 1954, Walter Savenko signed an affidavit in which he stated, "That I made out and cashed the following checks that were signed by me in Elmer Gipson's name and were written on the First National Bank of Bismarck, North Dakota, and the money was received by me, as follows and on or about the following dates and in the following amounts." Then follows a list of dates and amounts that correspond to those set forth in the plaintiff's complaint. After the list appears this further statement:"That I had no authorization to do the act of making these checks, and that they were written without the consent or knowledge of Elmer Gipson."
On being confronted with this affidavit on the witness stand Savenko repeatedly denied that he had forged any of the specific checks listed and maintained:"If Gipson thought I owed him that money or forged the money out of the bank, I'm willing to pay it back. * * I said I would pay them if he thought I forged that money out of the bank, that amount, and I would pay him that money if he thought he had it coming."
*674 The bank furnished plaintiff with copies of the statements of plaintiff's account for the months of December, January and February and the plaintiff designated the amounts thereon which he claimed represented charges against his account for checks which he had never written. These amounts correspond to the amounts of the alleged forged checks listed in plaintiff's complaint and the affidavit of Walter Savenko. While the evidence is not altogether satisfactory as to the specific forged checks charged to plaintiff's account, we can not say that as a matter of law the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict in this respect.
It is the general rule that a bank is charged with knowledge of the signatures of its depositors and in the absence of negligence on the part of a depositor a bank is liable for charging a forged check to his account. 7 Am.Jur., Banks, Section 574; 9 C.J.S. Banks and Banking § 356; Michie on Banks and Banking, Permanent Edition, Vol. 5 B, Chapter 9, Section 274.
As a defense the bank has pleaded Section 6-0807, NDRC 1943, which provides:"No bank shall be liable to a depositor for the payment by it of a forged or raised check unless within ninety days after the end of the month in which such check is paid such depositor shall notify the bank in writing that the check so paid is forged or raised."
At no time prior to the commencement of this action in October, 1954 did the plaintiff give the notice provided by this statute.
It is not uncommon to find statutes requiring the depositor to notify a bank that has charged a forged check against his account within a limited time after the forged check has been returned to the depositor. See Flaherty v. Bank of Kimball, 75 S.D. 468, 68 N.W.2d 105, wherein the court applied SDC 6.0422 which provides:"No bank shall be liable to a depositor for the payment by it of a forged or raised check unless within three months after the return to the depositor of such check such depositor shall notify the bank that the check so paid was forged or raised."
Statutes containing substantially the same provisions are or have been in effect in Kansas, see Herbel v. Peoples State Bank of Ellinwood, 170 Kan. 620, 228 P.2d 929, and Michigan, see Benge v. Michigan National Bank, 341 Mich. 441, 67 N.W.2d 721, 50 A.L.R.2d 1108. From a reading of these cases we reach the conclusion that under those statutes it is generally held that the statute does not bar the right of recovery by a depositor who failed to give the notice prescribed by statute because the depositor did not receive knowledge or the means of knowledge by the return of his forged check or otherwise that the forged check had been charged against his account, but that such a statute does bar a recovery against the bank in cases falling within its terms.
We mention these statutes and cases from other states in order to distinguish this case from those cited by the parties and to emphasize the absence in our statute of any requirement that the depositor have notice of forgery because of the return of his forged check or otherwise since it provides that the depositor shall notify the bank in writing of the forgery within ninety days after the end of the month in which the check is paid in order to hold the bank liable. On this point the statute is clear and is therefore not open to construction. Only statutes that are ambiguous and of doubtful meaning are subject to judicial interpretation. State for Benefit of Workmen's Compensation Fund v. E. W. Wylie Co., 79 N.D. 471, 58 N.W.2d 76; Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3d Ed., Sec. 4502.
The evidence shows that at the close of business of each calendar month the bank prepares a bundle of all the checks charged against the depositor's account during *675 that month and wraps around it a ledger sheet showing deposits to and charges against the account. This bundle is for delivery to the depositor. The statute under consideration places on the depositor the burden of ascertaining whether a forged or raised check has been charged against his account and thus place himself in a position to give the required notice to the bank. Our statute appears to be unique in this respect. We have diligently searched for a comparable statute outside of our jurisdiction and have found none. None has been pointed out to us. "But we must adopt the plain meaning of a statute, however severe the consequences." Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345, 76 S. Ct. 919, 927, 100 L. Ed. 1242. We have no choice but to apply our statute as written in the absence of waiver or estoppel on the part of the bank.
Over the objection of the defendant the trial court instructed the jury on the law of waiver and estoppel and left to the jury the questions of fact as to whether the defendant had waived the defense afforded it by Section 6-0807, NDRC 1943, or had by its conduct become estopped from asserting that defense. Since the jury found in favor of the plaintiff we must assume that it reached the conclusion that the defendant either waived or was estopped from asserting the statute as a defense. The question before us at this point, therefore, is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of the jury that the defendant either waived or was estopped from asserting the defense under consideration. This court has repeatedly defined waiver as the "voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim, or privilege, which except for such waiver the party would have enjoyed." Meyer v. National Fire Insurance Co., 67 N.D. 77, 269 N.W. 845, 850; Sjoberg v. State Automobile Insurance Association, 78 N.D. 179, 48 N.W.2d 452; Kessler v. Thompson, N.D., 75 N.W.2d 172. In Jacobson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 70 N.D. 566, 296 N.W. 545, 548, we said:"To constitute a waiver there must be an intention to relinquish a known right, an intentional forbearance to enforce a right."
In Werner v. Werner, 74 N.D. 565, 23 N.W.2d 757, we held:"An essential element of equitable estoppel is a representation which may consist of words, acts or silence, believed and relied upon by the party claiming the benefit of the estoppel which induced him to act or refrain from acting, to his prejudice."
This statement has been quoted or cited with approval in the following cases: Sailer v. Mercer County, 75 N.D. 123, 26 N.W.2d 137; Star v. Norsteby, 75 N.D. 563, 30 N.W.2d 718; Commercial Credit Corporation v. Dassenko, 77 N.D. 412, 43 N.W.2d 299; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Duvall, N.D., 67 N.W.2d 593.
According to the testimony of the plaintiff, shortly after he discovered the forgeries for which settlement was made he had several conversations with the vice-president of the defendant bank who told him that the bank would not pay unless the checks were produced. The plaintiff further testified that in a later conversation had during the early part of May, 1954 the vice-president, in the presence of plaintiff's attorney, said:"that if I could produce the checks the Bank would pay, otherwise it wouldn't."
The plaintiff predicates waiver or estoppel on these conversations and the promise of the vice-president that the bank would pay if the checks were produced. It is argued that because of these conversations and the promise to pay the checks if they were produced the plaintiff was induced to forego giving the notice required by the statute, that it was the duty of the bank officer to advise the plaintiff of the necessity of giving such notice and that the bank is estopped *676 by reason of the silence of its officer in this respect. The checks were never produced. In their absence it is clear that there was no waiver of the statute. There is no indication from the conversations with the vice-president that he intended to relinquish or forbear the enforcement of any right which the bank had in the absence of the production of the checks. Clearly there was no waiver. Neither did the conduct of the vice-president amount to an estoppel. There is no evidence to indicate that the conversations in any way contributed to the failure of the plaintiff to give the notice prescribed by statute. According to the plaintiff's own testimony he was told that the bank would not pay if he did not produce the checks that he claimed were forged. There was no concealment on the part of the bank officer of any fact pertinent to the controversy. Neither was there a failure of performance of any duty on his part."Where there is no fraud shown, neither the ignorance of a person of his right to bring an action nor the mere silence of a person liable to the action prevents the running of the statute of limitations. Coe v. Sloan, 16 Idaho 49, 100 P. 354." Kenyon v. United Electric Railways Co., 51 R.I. 90, 151 A. 5, 8.
The burden is on the plaintiff to establish his contention that the defendant waived its right to assert the defense of the statute under consideration or that it was estopped from doing so by the conduct of its vice-president. There is no evidence that the defendant intended to waive its statutory defense in the absence of the production of the forged checks or that the plaintiff failed to give the statutory notice because of any act or breach of duty on the part of the defendant bank, its officers or agents. Because of the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Section 6-0807, NDRC 1943, this action cannot be maintained. The judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to the verdict and the order of the trial court denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
SATHRE, C. J., and BURKE and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.
How big is First National Bank?
First National Bank employs approximately 6-10 people.
Is there a key contact at First National Bank?
You can contact Claire Seefeldt at (701) 427-5212.
How is First National Bank rated?
First National Bank has a 5.0 Star Rating from 2 reviewers.