or evidenced in the contract. Tawes, 340 S.W.3d at 425; MCI Telecomms., 995 S.W.2d at 651. “[T]he fact that a person is directly affected by the parties’ conduct, or that he ‘may have a substantial interest’ in a contract’s enforcement, does not make him a third[-] party beneficiary.” Loyd v. ECO Res., Inc., 956 S.W.2d 110, 134 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.), abrogated on other grounds by Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., 256 S.W.3d 735 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. dism’d). The third-party beneficiary need not be specifically named in the contract but must be otherwise sufficiently described or designated. Knox v. Ball, 144 Tex. 402, 413, 191 S.W.2d 17, 23 (Tex.1945). To qualify as a third-party beneficiary, the party must show (Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). Appellants nonetheless claim that they are
holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship recognizing common law cause of action as thirdparty beneficiary holding decrees failure to identify attorney by name was insufficient to confer thirdparty beneficiary status on him concerning decrees allocation of the payment of his fees holding decrees identification of person by name was sufficiently specific for purposes of thirdparty beneficiary status