Cited by

v. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) ().

v. Holm, ¶ 12 (App. 2020).

v. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (cleaned up).

DISCUSSION ¶9 –51, ¶ 21 (App. 2004), and Phoenix-Sunflower Industries, which held that the forcible detainer statutes apply only when the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship, Blansette contends that a genuine factual dispute concerning the existence of a landlord-tenant relatio

v. Holm, - 51, ¶ 21 (App. 2004).

V. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (“The only issue to be decided in [an FED] action is the right of actual possession.

v. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004).

v. Holm, -51, ¶¶ 17, 24 (App. 2004) (stating unjust enrichment defense is outside the scope of forcible detainer action).

¶ 8 (App. 1999) (“Clearly, one cannot try title in a forcible detainer action.” ()); ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (“The only issue to be decided in [a forcible detainer] action is the right of actual possession.

v. Holm, –51, ¶ 21 (App. 2004).

v. Holm, ¶ 24 (App. 2004)).

v. Holm, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) ("Although the fact of title may be admitted if incidental to proving a right to possession, the merits of title cannot be litigated.").

Nonetheless, we will “affirm the trial court when it reaches the correct conclusion even if it does so for an incorrect reason.”