At the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment filed by MMHP and Davis, there was no dispute as to the facts giving rise to Anderson’s claim against MMHP and Davis. Rather, the parties requested that based on the stipulated facts and the documents submitted to it the court determine as a matter of law whether Anderson was a tenant of MMHP. The court determined that Anderson was not a tenant of MMHP and granted the motion for summary judgment, and Anderson appeals. We find no error in the court’s determination, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See M.R.Civ.P. 56 (summary judgment shall be granted when no genuine issue as to any material fact and any party entitled to judgment as a matter of law). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.