Case ID: so2d_619/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James A. NESBITT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. The BROTHERS OF The ORDER OF HERMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
    Nos. 92-2283, 92-2079.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 18, 1993.
    Rehearing Denied June 22, 1993.
    Bailey, Hunt, Jones & Busto and Jesse Jones, Miami, for appellant, cross-appellee.
    Peters, Robertson, Lax, Parsons & Welcher and Steven B. Sundook, Miami, for appellee, cross-appellant.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and COPE, JJ.
   SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We agree with the position of the defendant Order, asserted on cross-appeal, that as a matter of law the plaintiff-appellant Nesbitt is not entitled to recover. Nesbitt sued as the third party beneficiary of a contract in which the Order agreed to pay the college expenses of Nesbitt’s children in return for one O’Malley’s voluntary dismissal of a federal court suit O’Malley was maintaining against the Order. Since it is uncontradicted that O’Malley did not dismiss the suit, the Order had no obligation to pay the expenses claimed. See Binz v. Helvetia Florida Enterprises, Inc., 156 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 162 So.2d 665 (Fla.1964); Cohen v. Rothman, 127 So.2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. discharged, 138 So.2d 328 (Fla.1962). Accordingly the judgment against the Order is reversed with directions to enter judgment in its favor.

Reversed.