Here, the record shows that Partners did not have exclusive possession of the storage space. The trial court found that “River Landing also had access to and stored some of its property in these same spaces.” This finding is supported by the testimony of River Landing’s property manager, who stated that River Landing used the space to store “some doors, some lights, different things like that ... to use whenever [it] needed them.” The property manager further testified that River Landing “would send people up [to the storage space] all the time to get lights and different things like that.” As explained supra, “we consider th[is] evidence in the light most favorable” to River Landing and give it “the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” P.M. Constr. Servs., 26 S.W.3d at 287. We think it only logical that a storage space in which more than one party stores its belongings is not in the exclusive possession of either party. Accordingly, we defer to the trial court’s conclusion that Partners were not in exclusive possession of the storage space. Because “no one can maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer who ... was not in ... exclusive possession,” Bixeman, 187 S.W. at 270, we need not address Partners’ additional arguments. CONCLUSION