seriously?

granted, a hospital is business to make money, and granted, they charge a @!$%#load for what they do, but they DO help people. and now, because garth threw a fit, an untold number of people, who would likely have been helped by whatever construction projects the hospital had in the works, are going to go without now. on top of that, if the hospital has already started construction, who's going to suffer because now they have to restructure their funds?

if i did this in my mother's name, she would NOT be pleased with me at all. in fact, i'm pretty sure she'd be ashamed. and humiliated.

bad move, garth.

If you knew Garth like I know Garth, you'd understand that he's probably already earmarked this money for another cause. Of course, I don't know Garth that well, maybe not even at all, so my hypothesis might not bear a lot of weight, but it's a pretty good guess.

I agree that Garth Brooks should have gotten his donation back if they went back on a deal, however awarding him money above that takes money away that could have been used to help others. While the jury may want to 'teach the hospital a lesson', that lesson is only going to harm those that need the medical attention the hospital is going to have to cut back on because of this.

The jury was probably starstruck to award such "restitution" to be paid out of a hospital budget. I seriously lost a lot of respect for Garth over this. And "heroes"? Please! It really bothers me how easily people throw around that word these days - it cheapens the value of the term for real heroes, who risk their own lives to save other people's.

If he wasn't a celebrity country singer in Oklahoma, I don't think he would have prevailed based on his statement during the deposition. That should have created substantial doubt that he did not make this a condition initially. Of course, I'm not a fan of his, so maybe that taints my view. Or maybe makes me more objective. I just won a ten year old lawsuit I had to defend and have a fairly good idea of how the system works. The judgment, and particularly the amount of punitive damages, seems unusual. They could appeal, but only regarding legal issues, not the basic judgment, although punitive damages can be overturned for being unreasonable.

It's nice he loved his mama, but his shtick is still too much for me to handle.

JerkInCoolClothes said:

seriously?

granted, a hospital is business to make money, and granted, they charge a @!$%#load for what they do, but they DO help people. and now, because garth threw a fit, an untold number of people, who would likely have been helped by whatever construction projects the hospital had in the works, are going to go without now. on top of that, if the hospital has already started construction, who's going to suffer because now they have to restructure their funds?

Lemme explain a little something to you: when somebody gives money for a specific cause, the recipient has no legal right to designate that money elsewhere, even if it was for a good cause. Garth gave that money specifically for that women's center, and the hospital failed to honor its commitment and instead stole that money to use for other projects.

Maybe you are from another country, but in the United States, contracts are legally binding. If some organization is given money for a specific purpose, it is illegal to use those funds in some other way, no matter what.

For example, if someone donates $1 million specifically to fund a garden outside a hospital, that hospital has no legal right to shift that money towards investing in children's cancer technology. Just because the money may be viewed as "better" spent elsewhere by people like you on something else, does not make it morally or legally right to use that money any other way than it was specified.

You are advocating for theft via improper use of funds.

That should have created substantial doubt that he did not make this a condition initially. Of course, I'm not a fan of his, so maybe that taints my view. Or maybe makes me more objective.

I'm not a fan either, but I also realize that this article is lacking in real information.

I certainly hope that the punitive damages awarded will be immediately donated by Brooks to some worthy charity. I am not sure whether I agree with the punitive award or not. It seems from the article that the hospital administrator that Brooks was dealing with never had any real intention of honoring the agreement and wanted to use the money elsewhere. Does this behavior warrant awarding of punitive damages?!?! If it was anything but a hospital I think the answer would be a resounding yes, but taking money from a hospital does not just hurt the hospital. It is one thing to say the hospital deserved it for reneging on the agreement, but then you think about the people in the community that are going to be hurt due to the hospital losing that much money. Hopefully Brooks can find another hospital to give the original gift to that will honor his wishes that a women's health center be built in his mom's name. It is a shame that the original hospital did not honor the deal and build the women's health center. It would have been good for the community and saved them a lot of bad press. Incidents like this make people think twice about where they donate. They want to be sure their money is being put to good use.

@Scott G. Howell - You do not know what you are talking about. Covenants and restrictions on gifts are fairly common. Just because the donor wants the new facility, wing, etc. named after someone does not mean it is not a charitable donation. The person doing the giving is still not receiving anything of monetary value for the gift. It is also very common for restriction on how and where the money can be use to accompany gifts. Many people will place restrictions on gifts to medical institutions in particular, not wanting the money to be used for embryonic stem cell research (because of the donors religious beliefs) or wanting it to go to research on a particular disease that a loved one died from, etc. These restrictions make the donation no less charitable and should not cause them to be treated differently for tax purposes. To do so would likely have a chilling effect on donations. Rich people like to see their names on things that are more permanent like a building.

I had little doubt he would win, I am also very glad that he did.

I don't understand the hospitals motive behind their refusal to apply his mothers name or why they went back on this deal.

Scott: You are incorrect regarding the taxes. The donation for naming rights is a somewhat grey area with the IRS, but the general rule is how "substantial" the value of the return on a donation is compared to what is expected in return. Example, if a person donates $100 to receive a $50 meal, then the deduction is legally $50. They would have to prove financial value in the naming rights of the hospital, to which would be extremely difficult given that it is his Mother's name and he isn't making anything off of it. The second option would be if the hospital guaranteed naming rights for buildings in the past at a certain dollar amount, i.e., establishing a precedent of value, which doesn't sound like that is the case.

It isn't to say they couldn't possibly say *SOME* of the $500k isn't deductible, but it would be a small portion that is subject to proving he gained monetarily from it.

To others, the $500k may or may not be too much in punitive damages -- the jury apparently felt it was appropriate, but don't think for a second that the Integris hospital group is scraping pennies. They won't be turning any lights off any time soon.

Arieus said:

I hope everyone boycotts this sob. He took back money that would help the sick all because the failed to build a women's health center in honor of his late mother.

Why not blame the hospital for not honoring their contract? They are the real ones screwing over the people, not whatshisface.

If the hospital properly used the money, there would never have been a problem.

You, too, advocate theft.

Arieus: Garth sued a for profit hospital that didn't live up to their end of the deal. Not the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, a homeless shelter....but a for profit hospital. It was the JURY who awarded punitive damages, not Garth asking for it.

Hell, haven't you ever seen The Bucket List? Think of Jack Nicholson's character, who owns the chains of for profit hospitals, and then rethink your anger towards Garth Brooks.

Don't fool yourselves, there's only one person who's going to suffer from that extra $500k, and that's the hospital's president when his annual bonus turns out to be a little smaller than usual this year.

Don't fool yourselves, there's only one person who's going to suffer from that extra $500k, and that's the hospital's president when his annual bonus turns out to be a little smaller than usual this year.

And here's the reason why the addition on the hospital was not built. He was saving it for his bonus.

Shame on Garth Brooks!!!!!!!!!!This man has more money than he or his kids and grandkids, and great grandkids could ever spend and he is whining about his donation not being applied to a wing with his surname on it. This amount of money is change in his pocket. Then to add double that for emotional damage. Maybe he should think of the damage that will apply to the people that the hospital now cannot serve because of this award.I have always been a Garth Brooks fan, stressing been. There is more to life than money and fame, something Garth obviously does not understand.

just another reason why celebrities sicken me. it is true that the hospital should have used the funds as negotiated but garth brooks has so much freakin money i cant believe he was awarded 500k punitive damages. i hope he donates this money to another charitable cause, not just to make a wing of a hospital in his mothers name. he is such an arrogant ass already and now everyday citizens on the jury are bending over for him because of his celebrity. give me a break. there are so many other problems in the world go get a life garth and find a worthwile cause

This hospital is definately no small town, helping hand hospital.

In 1994, INTEGRIS merged with Baptist Healthcare of Oklahoma, an event that brought to the organization a network of outstanding rural hospitals across the state. In 1995, INTEGRIS merged with Southwest Medical Center, an acute-care hospital in southwest Oklahoma City. Each of these organizations brings a rich history of serving Oklahomans. INTEGRIS Health, along with these and a number of other affiliated entities, form the INTEGRIS Health system.

I do not even think they will notice 1 million dollars being paid out to Garth.

Hmmm... More likely than not, you are correct. The $1 million is a drop in the bucket for the hospital. However, contrary to what other posters are saying, Garth Brooks did do the right thing. If one makes a deal, one needs to keep one's end of the bargain and deliver as promised. The hospital did not do that, and the jury agreed.

Agree, yes. "JerkInCoolClothes" should remove the "InCoolClothes" part in his handle, leaving just "Jerk" because that is what he is. I don't trust hospitals, have you ever checked your last hospital bill? Those things are padded like there is no tomorrow! They are sneaky and deceitful and I can just see all the smiles and hand shakes with garth and in the administrators mind he is thinking, great, we just paid for the other projects that we don't have funding for!

stay classy, garth... or should I say chris gaines...

Maybe you are from another country, but in the United States, contracts are legally binding.

The key word here is "contract". If it wasn't specified in writing that the donation was to be spent on a women's wing, then there is no binding contract, only word of mouth.

Garth Brooks is a very small, shallow, selfish man, as are most celebrities. If he wanted a wing to be named in honor of his mother, he should have gotten it all in writing. Apparently, that was not the case.

Apparently, that was not the case.

The jury found that apparently it was the case that there was a valid contract.

Scott G. Howell

Is this a donation? Did Garth Brooks take a deduction on his income taxes for this "donation"? If so, then maybe the IRS should reconsider that it is not a charitable contribution; because Mr. Brooks made a "contract" to receive something of value to him in (naming a woman's center after his Mom) in consideration of his 500k paid to the hospital. That is not a gift. Gifts that are negotiated and especially if the recipient did not need or want the woman's center and was bargained with to give something to Mr. Brooks that it did not expect to otherwise give are enforceable contracts. The court was right to enforce the breach of this contract against the hospital. In tandem, Mr. Brooks should not receive any taxable benefit under Section 501c3.

Scott, in what way will garth profit from the donation he gave ? It was a gift.

UMGator- Many states recognize verbal agreements as contracts, with or without a handshake, especially if it was discussed multiple times.

When Brook can't remember details about "Meetings" he had, then remembers at trial. I believe that's called lying. I believe he gave the money first and then decided to change the donation. At that point, he should have donated more money to cover what he wanted, not after the fact. The jury award was given I'm sure because of who he is and not what went on.

I think the hospital will have the last laugh when it finishes construction on the "Garth Brooks Sucks Memorial Wing"

What a jackass. Not only will he get HIS money back but he'll ROB the hospital of money they sorely need. HE doesn't need it. HE has more money than he knows what to do with. What a frickin CLOWN.

Contract law and the jury system have been getting ignored way too much. nice to see someone still believes both are important. IT's hard to believe he'd give $500k with no agreement. Just mailed it in as the hospital attny said. My BS meter went into the red on that one. As far as the poor little people not helped because the poor hospital now has to pay $500k extra to Brooks - there are probably 50 or more people in that institution making over $500k per year, yr on yr. Perhaps a little cutback on some fancy paychecks coupled with a run through an ethics and basic law course would do them some good. There are medical plan Insurance Agents who make $500k a year - can anyone explain what medical benefit anyone gets from an insurance agents taking renewal orders from his clinets for the 30th year in a row ? But the first major chunk of premium dollars skimmed off go to insurance agents, the second chunk goes to insurance execs. Hospital Administrators and hospital lawyers get the next big bites. When all the important people get what they want, then what's left over goes for patient care. They are not going to miss the $500k. The jury did the right thing.

nice going Garth, More reason for people not to listen your crapping singing.

teach them a lesson not to do it to anyone else?? HUH!??!? what are we 10 years old??

Seriously now. Who cares what the hospital makes, You people that get sick go there all the time regardless, because???!?!? you have insurance, thats why, nobody pays full price for hospital stay, without insurance. garth is a moron simple as that. didnt have to accept the extra money sure get his money back. but to get extra?? come on garth get a life.

its not a matter of missing 500k. the hospital will just charge the insurance company more, they dont care. you dont see that do you. ugh how stupid can one be, garth just go away.

Boo hoo they wont build a wing for my mommy!! boo hoo!!!

teach them a lesson not to do it to anyone else?? HUH!??!? what are we 10 years old??

Yes, yes you are.

People who are naughty get taught lessons.

So sad that mommy never taught you that stealing is bad. Maybe she will next year.

I cannot believe the lack of common sense displayed by many who think that if a jury decided a contract was valid and had been breached, then that must be the God-honest truth. A jury, of Brook's (and supposedly the hospital's) peers. Really? You really believe this was a justly rationalized decision by a group of 12 unbiased jurors, many of them self-professed loyal fans of the claimant? Do you really think these average-Joe groupies have any perception of the law, much less whether or not an oral contract is legally binding in their area of jurisdiction? Even if an oral contract is legally binding, by jove, the person shelling out the bucks needs to be able to have a good memory of the terms of such an agreement. By the way, I dare to bet some of you standing up for the jury now are the same people who griped that OJ Simpson got away with murder because the jury was swayed by his celebrity status. But yet, this jury could not be so biased, could it..?

And some of you say we cannot judge what a certain amount of money means to a person? Well, perhaps not, but one can certainly guess the priorities of a man of means by what he does with his resources. For those of you who are not local, I would like to point out that just down the road (I-40), a large corporation has dropped $50+ million to have a sports arena named after it. And here, Mr Brooks believed that $500K would get his momma's name on a hospital building? Now, compare $500K to the millions he and wife have spent on a new home. Are you really going to argue that $500K actually means that much to him? And, if he limited himself to $500K for his momma and would not shell out a penny more (which is what the hospital was trying to work out with him for these naming rights), well - I guess momma is less valuable than the new [mansion] he just bought.

I was not there but neither were any of you, so how are you so adamant that the hospital broke its promise? This is the most likely scenario:

The hospital solicits funds (what health-related organization doesn't). A good prospect for receiving a handsome donation would be that national celebrity whose roots are in this hospital's city. It is possible that Mr Brooks first agreed to submit a donation, and later requested the favor of adding his mother's name on a building in gratitude for his relatively sizeable donation. Or it is possible that in the process of soliciting a donation, the possibility of having a name on a building was presented. There may be several scenarios of what happened; it is possible that Mr Brooks made an initial donation, and the hospital suggested they would name a building if he would increase his donation. At this time, Mr Brooks may have either misunderstood and thought he was being given the luxury of having this building name after his mother; or, he may have at this point suddently wished he had thought of this to begin with, and requested the naming rights as a condition of his donation. Now, any organization that is going to give out naming rights has a price tag attached this luxury. Mr Brooks probably did not want to shell out more than he already had, which is what the hospital was asking. There were apparently images of a building bearing the name of the departed presented to Mr Brooks. These were most likely generated to stir the emotions which would help loosen the purse-strings. There were most likely several meetings between Mr Brooks and the hospital executives to reach some kind of compromise, and none were resolved to the satisfaction of either party. What the hospital did may seem devious, but it is not illegal; it is not even uncommon, and it is not a final, binding contract.

To decide that a contract was broken is questionable at best, in the absence of a tangible, signed document. To further award punitive damages is to "teach a lesson" is a legally unprecidented move, one which could only be motivated by inappropriate emotional attachment to the case. Because the jurors awarded "punitive damages," they did not just demand the transfer of funds away fom a healthcare facility, they effectively provided undeserved emotional validation to someone who, based on the unfortunately limited information provided in the article, did not really meet the burden of proof to show there was a contract to be broken. And this is the real reason Mr Brooks considers them "heros."

What a jackass. Not only will he get HIS money back but he'll ROB the hospital of money they sorely need. HE doesn't need it. HE has more money than he knows what to do with. What a frickin CLOWN.

Apparently the hometown folks think that a celebrity country singer is more believable than a slick executive at the for-profit hospital.

They should have just written Brooks a check to refund the original donation when he requested it - they probably could have received a signed non-disclosure agreement. That would have avoided all the bad publicity, the lawyers' fees and court costs, and the punitive damages. This outfit ain't too good at risk assessment (indicates hubris - they were sure they couldn't lose.)

Now both sides know - get every agreement in writing, even if the agreement is "no restriction."

damn... jury's overstepping their bounds again....damn libral soft hearts.

http://www.bergproperties.com/blog/garth-brooks-and-trisha-yearwoods-malibu-ca-purchase-price-revealed-country-stars-paid-the-precise-495m-asking-price-for-their-new-home/

Bet he paid cash.

Derrek

I hope your mother, father sisters brothers, wife (or boyfriend) and children have to go to the hospital and wait 3 days for treatment, then we will see who is crying. I am all man and a man is as good as his word, but sometimes things must change

Derek -

"During cross-examination, an Integris lawyer highlighted statements that Brooks made in a deposition after he sued. Brooks said couldn't say whether the women's center was promised, or whether his mother's name would be attached to an existing center.

"I don't remember," Brooks said in the deposition."

How is that remembering the terms?

Ron, if I just read you correctly, you basically said we should all keep our word, well, unless we don't, especially if it serves us. Hope you don't teach that to our next generation.

500K is roughly 1/3 of 1% of his net worth, as of last year. To Brooks, 500K is NOT a lot of money. Google "Garth Brooks net worth" and see what you find.

kathy

Jesus will not forgive this Indian giver, he must be a real mommies boy. If Jesus will not forgive him why should I. You do charity from the heart to feel good that you are helping people that have less then him. Someday you might understand this.

You're so close to Jesus that you know his judgement already, eh? I don't know him as well as you, apparently, but do seem to remember his saying something about "Judge not, that you be not judged."

Who are you to say what that amount of money means to him just because he has what you see as a lot? I have quite enough money and if someone steals a penny of it, I am rightfully upset and want it back. Its my penny just like its his $500k. Remember all you haters the man EARNED that money through hard work and probably smart investments. Whether your net worth is $5 million or $500 that's your money that you earned and no one has the right to take it.

Ron, first off "indian giver" is a repulsive term used by people ignorant of its origin....second...who cares if you forgive him? Don't hide behind Jesus's name...you are the worst kind of Christian if you do that... and I doubt you are close enough to him to say what his judgement is. Garth Brooks is known for his charitable donations...and I would be very surprised if that million wasn't already being earmarked for another donation as well.

Sounds like alot of you are just jealous of what the man has..jealous and bitter.. so sad.

@impatient girl

He earned?!?!?!? Buhahahahahah to funny!!

I am with you. That amount of money meant very little to him and would come no where close to the amount it would cost to build a womens center. I think he won because he is a celebrity.

How do you know that amount of money "meant little to him"??? He EARNED that money. He worked hard for that money. Why dont you just give all of us $50 of your hard earned money then since you think its nothing?? I am SO tired of all the haters out there that think just because someone has more money that they didnt earn it or dont value it.

Ariole, why don't you take a moment to look up the term "indian giver"....its use just shows how stunningly ignorant you are.....

Also...he didn't set up a trust....he gave a donation that was for a specific purpose...a women's center named for his mother...oh, what a selfish man....the hospital reneged on its agreement and a jury found them liable for the half million and for the punitive damages....which, no doubt, Mr. Brooks will donate to another institution.

And there is the rub....there was NO signed agreement, just a "verbal" one, and the donation was made anonymously......Integris should have won this case, hands down....Star struck jury gave the celebrity what he wanted. I'd appeal this in a heartbeat.

But it does beg the question about how seriously the Integris attorney's took the case, must've thought it was a slam dunk. I've seen tough voir dire for DUI cases where there was a lot less than $500K at stake, now $1M.

@lightrail - The only person you're fooling is yourself, oral agreements can be just as binding as anything you sign on paper.

How much house did they buy that someone with $150M (supposedly) needs another million? Sure hope that Tricia's voice isn't gone, too, as she was the real vocal talent of the two.

Ummm, it was HIS money to begin with!!! No one "gave" it to him, he GAVE it to the hospital, which in turn had specific obligations to fulfill. They failed and therefore forfeited the GIFT Mr. Brooks did NOT have to give them to begin with!!!! Amazing how many posters on here don't seem to get that...

I wouldn't give fifty cents to a for profit hospital chain if they promised to name the entire hospital, or the entire chain for that matter, for my mother. There's nothing wrong with profits, but when you're in business to make money, then you're not a charity. It's a lot like giving a donation to your car dealer so that he'll name the service bays for your dad. He's fixing things to make money; they're attempting to fix people to make money. I realize that most people are more emotionaly attached to a parent than a vehicle, fortunately, but I just don't see it. My wife was a contractor for a for profit hospital chain for years, so this probably affects my judgement, admittedly.

If its not about money then why did he raise a stink?

paramed....because they didn't honor their end of the agreement...this was about his mom...honoring her by putting her name on a women's center he helped fund...simple as that.....he didn't ask for the punitive damages...that was all the jury.....he asked that since the hospital never intended to build the women's center or put her name on it that the money be returned.