In Apana v. Rosario, 2000 Guam 7, the plaintiff was a subcontractor who had contracted with a general contractor who himself contracted with a married couple to construct a residential home on their property. Apana, 2000 Guam 7 PP 2-4. The contract price for the construction of the home was $ 75,000.00 with periodic draws of $ 15,000.00, which were to be paid out in accordance with a schedule of completion for the various stages of construction. Id. P 2. After learning that the bank that had approved the couple's application for the mortgage home loan would not release further draws until the general contractor was bonded, the subcontractor, Apana, stopped construction on the house. Id. P 4. Apana stopped working on the property on April 13, 1992, and filed his claim of lien exactly 150 days later. Id. P 18. Construing 7 GCA 33302(b) and (d)(3) to provide that a claimant has 150 days after cessation of labor to file his claim of lien, this court deemed Apana's lien claim timely and reversed that part of the trial court's decision to the contrary. Id. P 26. The Court restated and purported to apply the "fair and reasonable" construction for interpretation of the mechanics' lien statute. 2000 Guam 7 P 17. The issue in Apana was whether the lien claimant timely filed his mechanics' lien. Id. P 1. The court found that the trial court misinterpreted the time limits in the statute by misreading them. Id. P 18. The court concluded that the trial court erred in "strictly interpreting" 7 GCA 33302(b) by holding that the lien claimant did not timely file its lien claim. Id. P 26. The court reasoned that the trial court failed to read 7 GCA 33302(d)(3) with 7 GCA 33302(b) in determining whether or not the lien claim was timely filed. Id. P 26. Title 7 GCA 33302(b) states that if no notice of completion is filed, the lien claimant has ninety days after completion of work to file the claim in accordance with section 33302(c). 7 GCA 33302(b) (2005). Title 7 GCA 33302(d)(3) states that "completion of work" is equivalent to cessation of labor for a continuous period of sixty days after work has been done. 7 GCA 33302(d)(3) (2005). Rather than only having ninety days after the completion of the work to file the claim as sections 33302(b) and 33302(c) state, a lien claimant actually had 150 days to record the lien claim because sections 33302(b) and 33302(d)(3) should be read and applied together. Apana, 2000 Guam 7 PP 16-18. Thus, the court actually applied the plain reading construction because the statutory sections in question were clear on their face.