who else thought (spoiler)

I did, and that planted the seed that the money was getting stolen eventually, and it did.

Was indeed surprised to see those kids pay for the tree. I did think why was the blind men there, but the joke was enough i thought. Was convinced the money would be stolen eventually but the blind man was a nice touch, didn't see that one coming, and laughed when i realised what the writers had done there. Of course they concocted the situation with the kids intentionally.

I though the story would go more like this: I thought that the Rudd character set up the theft, since he was kind of saying "let the theif go", and then would meet the "blind" dude and get all the money back and give the blind dude a cut, thereby entirely cutting out Giamatti's character of the money. I really thought that was the angle about to unfold. Instead, pathetic writers had a father who loves his daughter allow the lie to continue that he is dead, totally unrealistic. Sure, fathers walk out on the kids all the time. But not when a father desperately loves his daughter and the only reason is because his b***ch wife said he is dead. Clearly the script writers have no kids of their own.