Martz and others sued Mogensen and his surety in Small Claims Court, seeking damages for Mogensen’s alleged breach of a contract between himself and the Whitley County Drainage Board. The court found in favor of Martz and entered judgment against Mogensen for $560.00 plus costs. Although Mogensen raises a number of questions on appeal, the only issue which this Court must address is whether Martz and the others had standing to enforce the contract.
Reversed.
Pete Mogensen and the Whitley County Drainage Board executed a contract on November 9, 1979. This contract provided that Mogensen would make repairs on Go-ble Drain, which was part of property later purchased by Martz and others. The specification at issue is 2(E):
“ Trees and brush shall be burned and the stumps buried except in muck lands, and wooded areas, the brush and trees shall be piled at areas designated by the landowner, within 500' from their original location . . . .” (Emphasis original.)
On November 7, 1980, the County Engineer certified that the work had been satisfactorily completed and the county paid Mogen-sen on November 17, 1980.
Hugo Martz, Katherine Martz, Ivan Bo-densteiner and Patricia Bodensteiner *35 agreed to purchase the property on September 2, 1980. The deed transferring the property to them was executed on November 26, 1980 and recorded on December 1, 1980. In March, 1981, Martz hired a contractor to clean up areas of the property so that the land could be cultivated. During the course of this work, the contractor discovered tree stumps close to the surface of the ground along Goble Drain. The contractor spent eight hours bulldozing the stumps and clearing the ground for cultivation. This work cost Martz and the other owners $560.00. They filed suit against Mogensen, alleging that he had breached his contract with the drainage board by not properly burying the stumps.
Although clearly not parties to the contract, Martz and the other owners assert a right as third party beneficiaries to enforce it.
1
Third party beneficiaries may directly enforce a contract in Indiana.
Standard Land Corporation of Indiana v. Bogardus
(1972),
First, the contract does not show a clear intent to directly benefit the property owner. Such intent may be shown by naming a specific property owner or property owners as a class,
Clark v. Corbly
(1953),
Second, the contract did not transfer a duty in favor of a third party from the Whitley County Drainage Board to Mogen-sen. The drainage board has statutory jurisdiction over regulated drains in the county.
2
This jurisdiction extends over the maintenance and repair of such drains, including the ability to assess property owners for the costs,
3
and the power to contract with an outside contractor for construction or maintenance of a drain.
4
The Whitley County Drainage Board has the duty to maintain regulated drains, such as Goble Drain, in Whitley County. This duty did not shift to Mogensen when the drainage board contracted with him for maintenance work on Goble Drain; it remained with the board. Martz asserts that he is a third party beneficiary of the contract because he, as a property owner, was assessed for
*36
the cost of the contract.
5
This assessment alone does not make the property owner a third party beneficiary. The drainage board retains its statutory duty to maintain drains and its statutory power to assess the funds necessary for that maintenance.
6
As long as the drainage board did not impose an obligation in favor of Martz and his co-owners on Mogensen, Martz and his co-owners have no right to enforce the contract.
Rawlings v. Vreeland
(1920),
Finally, Martz seeks damages for breach of contract because the property in question was not tillable until additional work had been done by another contractor. Martz has not alleged any problem with drainage on his land, but he asserts that proper performance of the contract would have rendered the land tillable. The right enforced by a third party beneficiary must have been intended by the parties. Freigy, supra; Rawlings, supra. The fact that performance of the terms of a contract is beneficial to a third party is not sufficient; that performance “must necessarily result in a direct benefit to a third party which was so intended by the parties.” Fiat Distributors, supra. Making land tillable was not a benefit which the parties intended to confer on Martz and his co-owners; therefore Martz cannot collect damages for Mogensen’s failure to do so.
Martz and his co-owners were not third party beneficiaries to the contract between Mogensen and the Whitley County Drainage Board. Therefore, the trial court erred in determining that Mogensen was liable to Martz on the contract for expenses incurred in preparing the land for cultivation.
Reversed.
Notes
. For the purposes of this discussion, the rights of Martz and his co-owners need not be distinguished from the rights of their predecessors in interest.
. IC 1976, 19-4-1-1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed.) (now replaced by 1C 1976, 36-9-27-1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed., 1981 Repl.)).
. IC 1976, 19 1 4 1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed.) (now replaced by IC 1976, 36-9-27-34 et seq. (Bums Code Ed., 1981 Repl.)).
. IC 1976, 19 — 4-7—4 (Burns Code Ed.) (now replaced by IC 1976, 36-9-27-77 (Burns Code Ed., 1981 Repl.)).
. At one time, the property owner had a statutory right to sue on the contractor’s bond for damages. IC 1926, § 6182 (Bums Code Ed.). This statute was strictly construed,
see State v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
(1930),
. IC 1976, 19 — 4—7—10 (Burns Code Ed.) (now replaced by IC 1976, 36-9-27-84 (Burns Code Ed., 1981 Repl.)).