MovieChat Forums > Hell or High Water (2016) Discussion > Why couldn't they just refinance instead...

Why couldn't they just refinance instead of robbing banks?

posted 8 years ago by jselbie
37 replies | jump to latest

It's revealed over the course of the film that Toby and Tanner are robbing banks to pay off a $40,000 mortgage on a farm that forecloses at the end of the week. Then later revealed that oil was discovered on the land. In the end, the farm is producing $50,000 worth of oil a month.

So if you're a farmer in Texas with $40K in debt, but are sitting on top of an multi acre plot of land that that has an oil reserve worth millions, is there still no possibility of avoiding foreclosure? Another bank can't refinance that loan? An oil company or investor is not available? And that you're only recourse to save your property from foreclosure is a bank robbing spree?

What am I missing?

[–] bstee-1 8 years ago

I asked this yesterday and was told just to stop thinking and enjoy a great movie. As to your question, absolutely not only refinance but a short term loan, an investor giving the $40,000 for a quick return (the farm was going to produce $600,000 a year almost immediately) or at the very worst the farm had not foreclosed yet, they could have signed a contract to lease the rights and that would have put cash in pocket to pay off the loan or they could have sold the property with the debt knowing it was going to produce income and the outstanding debt would just be deducted from the purchase price. Reverse mortgages are weird and they may not have had the last option but could always pay off the debt as they did but with more than half a million in income soon being produced it is rediculous to suggest they couldn't come up with $40,000.

The movie implied it was some sort of cold karma that the bank was paid back with their own money. But that is twisted because the "debt" was based on money the bank gave to the mother. She took the cash from the bank and everyone seemed to think the bank so,ehow owed her the money to repair this. She took the money and spent it and then they stole more money from the bank. The bank was not the bad guy in this story, the murdering thugs who stole from the bank and best and shot people because they didn't just get jobs, those were the bad guys.

[–] amselem120 8 years ago

I think that was the point of the movie. Recall that the retired sheriff goes to visit the surviving brother basically to ask that question. Why did you do it? Why did four people have to die? The brother is unable to give a good answer except to imply it was some sort of perverse payback to the bank; his way of giving the finger to the system that he argued had kept him and his family poor for generations. He implied a perverse joy in paying the bank with money stolen from the bank. He wasn't going to do it in accord with the rules. Just because . . .

[–] chipoetryreturns 8 years ago

You're missing nothing...they also could have borrowed money from the crime community or got an advance from the drilling company as condition of a contract...

[–] Marvelouis 8 years ago

they also could have borrowed money from the crime community or got an advance from the drilling company as condition of a contract...

^THIS^

But who cares? It's still a great film.

He also went through a screening road block in a stolen car without any problems. And his actions at the casino would have been reported. Lots of logic flaws but still a hell of a movie.

[–] Desepticon 8 years ago

I believe that car was legit. The others were stolen though. They stashed that car so they could make a clean getaway.

My brother was eaten by wolves on the CT Turnpike

[–] BrokenDreamer 8 years ago

Because they wanted to get revenge on the banks for how they tried to screw over the family. Pretty simple.

[–] bstee-1 8 years ago

I would agree that seems to be their twisted view. Of course they were wrong.

[–] DJWinston 8 years ago

"What am I missing?"

The whole point of the movie, I think.

As has already been pointed out, the brothers' plotting and scheming are basically to (1) exact revenge on the banks for pressing foreclosure so hard while their mother was on her deathbed, and (2) make sure their mother's wishes in her will are followed, that the farm goes to Toby and through him to his sons, and that nobody except their family have any ownership in, control over, or financial gains from the farm.

The brothers--especially Toby, who took care of his mother as she lay dying--feel, not without some justification, that the bank basically killed their mother, or at the very least hastened their mother's death or made her life more miserable as she was dying. After that psychological revenge issue, the whole thrust of the brothers' actions is to keep 100% of all interest in their mother's farm in the family, free and clear of any liens, bank debt, or outside investor interests. All of the other avenues you suggest, while possible, would end up with someone outside the family (banks, government, investors, etc.) having an ongoing financial and ownership interest in their mother's farm, whereas the money from the robberies would pay off the mortgage and any other debts on the farm, thus accomplishing the goal of keeping it all in the family. All part of the brothers' "Stick It To You Good" solution.

[–] fugga2q 8 years ago

They could have just taken out a loan and paid that back in a few months only costing them maybe a few thousand dollars in interest. Instead they decide to rob 4 banks risking their lives and the entire value of land. If they get caught during any of the robberies the bank will foreclose before they can do anything about it and in the end one brother does end up paying with his life. A six branch bank losing $40k wouldn't really harm them much at the end of the day and likely would be covered by insurance anyway. In the end instead of being totally done with bank that they believe wronged their mother they have to reward the bank with the lucrative management of the trust to cover their crimes. Seems like the bank made out just fine in the end.

[–] bstee-1 8 years ago

Actually the bank never "pressed foreclosure" on the mother. She took a reverse mortgage. That means she took money from the bank and she asked them to pay her taxes and let her live there until she passed. That is a a reverse mortgage not a foreclosure. The idea tha bank screwed her over and foreclosed or tried to is part of the reason some think this movie is better than it was. These were just murdering theives who wanted to steal rather than work.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DJWinston 8 years ago

Yes they did. Watch and listen next time.

[–] jpozenel 8 years ago

You're right. It was made know in the movie that it was a reverse mortgage. I'm not an expert on reverse mortgages, but I was under the impression that the holder of the mortgage owns the property and the property reverts to them when the original owner dies. Perhaps they provide for the estate to buy back the property within a predefined period after the death, but it's certainly not a traditional mortgage that can be refinanced. I'd like to know the ins and outs of a reverse mortgage to see if it jives with the plot of the movie.

[–] crashdummy35 8 years ago

If they find oil under your land you get paid as soon as it's discovered. Period.

I know a guy from East Texas named Rusty that got handed a 5 million dollar lease while he was in prison for DUI. Took 'em almost a year after the payments started to actually start drilling.

[–] chaufeur 8 years ago

Because this great movie would not exist if they refied, that's why!

[–] jsagotsky-1 8 years ago

Because who wants to see a movie about refinancing a bank loan. I have refinanced my mortgage, but I have never robbed a bank.

[–] AtoZ2014 8 years ago

I've heard of the public bailing out banks, but I'm not aware of a bank every giving an ordinary member of the public a bailout or even a fair break.

[–] hoz49 8 years ago

As was written on a wall at the beginning of the film!

[–] Jeff0015 8 years ago

That they were cancelling a reverse mortgage that mom took out. That there was a period of time in which the loan agreement could be cancelled with full repayment and paid property taxes up to date.
A reverse mortgage is when the bank pays you gradually for your house. Usually the terms are pretty advantageous to the bank.
Looks like mom died shortly after taking out reverse mortgage and younger son was named to inherit it in will, and he excersied one of the few rights that the seller has.
There are also strict rules about them, so I don't think he could have enlisted another bank to share the cost with him, even tho theyd jump at the oil. he doesnt want to take on a financial partner before the windfall.