What would happen?


Lets assume that the law figures out that both brothers were involved in the robberies and that they used the money to pay off the ranch to keep it from being foreclosed. Lets also asssume that they have the proof to prove this out 100%.

What would happen in this situation? Both brothers would go to jail and would be responsible for the actions and crimes that they committed. What happens to the ranch though? The $40,000 bought off the ranch and kept it form foreclosing, but they were making way more than that afterwards. Are the sons responsible for giving back that $40,000 that was stolen, or would it go further than that? Would the bank argue that they technically should have foreclosed, and the bank owns all the oil and profit that they obtained from the stolen money invested in the ranch?

reply

What would happen in this situation? Both brothers would go to jail and would be responsible for the actions and crimes that they committed. What happens to the ranch though? The $40,000 bought off the ranch and kept it form foreclosing, but they were making way more than that afterwards. Are the sons responsible for giving back that $40,000 that was stolen, or would it go further than that? Would the bank argue that they technically should have foreclosed, and the bank owns all the oil and profit that they obtained from the stolen money invested in the ranch?


That's a good question, but it drives home the fact that the whole thing was pretty contrived. Obviously that bank would be motivated to foreclose, knowing that there was oil on the property, but are they really saying that he couldn't get a $40,000 loan, based on the fact there were big oil profits just around the corner? I'm pretty sure the oil company would have paid that money up front, in exchange for paying lower fees to the family later. They'd clearly rather do that than let the place be foreclosed and probably end up paying top dollar to the bank.

reply

Well tanner can't go to prison because he's dead remember, so the rangers only need to find his partner. The lawyer stated when toby asked him out right " they can't take the trust away no matter what they charge us with?" Implying that they could be caught for this. The lawyer said that once the money was paid off and the trust setup no-one could touch it.

As for asking for a loan i look at it this way. Toby is at the end of his rope we don't see what he went through the months before the film starts. We don't know if he tried to get another loan and was refused multiple times. This is a reverse loan so he wouldn't have long between his mother passing and the bank foreclosing that's the nature of the loan you payback when you die or sell the house.

Toby would have had to planned for this months before preparing for his mother's passing knowing the loan would be due not long after she passed. This decision is not one he just came up with out of the blue its a desperate last ditch decision.





"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions"

reply