Ordinarily, upon reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion and resolve all doubts and inferences against the moving party. However, in a case such as this one where there are no facts at issue, we must simply determine whether appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will not reverse the trial court's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous. See Columbia Mut. 65 Ark. App.
Actual possession exists where the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the party.
Constructive possession exists where one claims to hold property by virtue of actual title without having the actual occupancy. Black's Law Dictionary, supra . Appellants argue that, had they delivered a deed on the scheduled closing date, appellee would have received constructive possession of the property and the terms of the contract would have been fulfilled. Appellee argues that the contract with appellants promised her actual possession of the property. We note that the property in question is a duplex, not a commercial office building or shopping center that a person buying as an investor would necessarily expect and hope to be occupied by tenants.