Case Name: BEACH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BEACH POINT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., etc., H.S. Hicks Construction Company of Palm Beach, etc., and the Lawrence Group Chartered Architects & Planners, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-12-31
Citations: 480 So. 2d 239
Docket Number: No. 84-2562
Parties: BEACH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BEACH POINT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., etc., H.S. Hicks Construction Company of Palm Beach, etc., and the Lawrence Group Chartered Architects & Planners, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 480
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
BEACH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. BEACH POINT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., etc., H.S. Hicks Construction Company of Palm Beach, etc., and the Lawrence Group Chartered Architects & Planners, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 84-2562.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 31, 1985.
Vladimir R. Martinez and Richard L. Martens of Boose, Cicklin, Martens & Lu-bitz, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A. and Easley Massa & Willits, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the decision of the trial court holding that a condominium association was not a third party beneficiary on a payment and .performance bond secured by the general contractor in favor of the original owner-developer of the condominium. American Surety Company of New York v. Smith, 100 Fla. 1012, 130 So. 440 (1930). Although the association's creation may have been foreseen, it appears that the association was not even in existence at the time the construction contract was executed and the bond secured. Under these circumstances, and the unambiguous provisions of the bond, we fail to see any basis for a claim that it is manifest from the terms of the bond that the parties intended to benefit the association.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.