{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f401\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f402\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f404\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f405\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f406\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f407\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f408\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f409\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f411\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f412\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f414\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}
{\f415\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f416\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f417\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}
{\f421\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f422\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f424\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f425\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}
{\f426\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f427\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f428\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f429\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;
\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;
\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{
\s1\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\s3\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel2\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\*\cs10 
\additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext15 Level 1;}{\s16\qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext16 Level 2;}{
\s17\qj \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext17 Level 3;}{\s18\qj \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\snext18 Level 4;}{\s19\qj \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext19 Level 5;}{\s20\qj \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext20 Level 6;}{\s21\qj \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext21 Level 7;}{
\s22\qj \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext22 Level 8;}{\s23\qj \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\snext23 Level 9;}{\*\cs24 \additive Default Para;}{\s25\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 Body Text;}{\*\cs26 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{
\s27\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext27 _level1;}{
\s28\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext28 _level2;}{\s29\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext29 _level3;}{\s30\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext30 _level4;}{\s31\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext31 _level5;}{\s32\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext32 _level6;}{\s33\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext33 _level7;}{\s34\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext34 _level8;}{\s35\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext35 _level9;}{
\s36\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext36 _levsl1;}{
\s37\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext37 _levsl2;}{\s38\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext38 _levsl3;}{\s39\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext39 _levsl4;}{\s40\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext40 _levsl5;}{\s41\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext41 _levsl6;}{\s42\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext42 _levsl7;}{\s43\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext43 _levsl8;}{\s44\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext44 _levsl9;}{
\s45\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext45 _levnl1;}{
\s46\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext46 _levnl2;}{\s47\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext47 _levnl3;}{\s48\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext48 _levnl4;}{\s49\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext49 _levnl5;}{\s50\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext50 _levnl6;}{\s51\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext51 _levnl7;}{\s52\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext52 _levnl8;}{\s53\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext53 _levnl9;}{
\s54\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext54 Definition T;}{\s55\qj \li360\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext55 Definition L;}{\*\cs56 \additive \i \sbasedon10 Emphasis;}{\*\cs57 
\additive \i Definition;}{\s58\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs48\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext58 H1;}{\s59\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\b\fs36\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext59 H2;}{\s60\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext60 H3;}{\s61\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext61 H4;}{\s62\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext62 H5;}{\s63\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\b\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext63 H6;}{\s64\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext64 Address;}{\s65\qj \li360\ri360\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\faauto\rin360\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext65 Blockquote;}{\*\cs66 \additive \i CITE;}{\*\cs67 \additive \f2\fs20 
CODE;}{\*\cs68 \additive \ul\cf12 FollowedHype;}{\*\cs69 \additive \b\f2\fs20 Keyboard;}{\s70\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx958\tx1917\tx2876\tx3835\tx4794\tx5754\tx6712\tx7671\tx8630\tx9356\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f2\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext70 Preformatted;}{\s71\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext71 zBottom of;}{
\s72\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrb\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext72 zTop of For;}{\*\cs73 \additive \f2 Sample;}{\*\cs74 \additive \b \sbasedon10 Strong;}{\*\cs75 \additive 
\f2\fs20 Typewriter;}{\*\cs76 \additive \i Variable;}{\*\cs77 \additive \v\cf6 HTML Markup;}{\*\cs78 \additive Comment;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid3286\rsid8786812\rsid9988721\rsid12345658\rsid15231707}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author Supreme Court of Guam}{\doccomm TO: All Justices }{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2006\mo4\dy3\hr8\min45}{\revtim\yr2006\mo4\dy3\hr8\min45}{\version2}{\edmins0}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords5074}{\nofchars28928}
{\*\company  }{\nofcharsws33935}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margt2160\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz936\notabind\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120
\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot8786812 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid8786812 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8786812 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8786812 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8786812 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1166\footery1440\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8786812\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 , Opinion\tab Page \chpgn  of }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid8786812 NUMPAGES \\* ARABIC }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid8786812 21}}}{
\insrsid8786812 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid8786812 
\par }{\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11337754 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop0\shpright0\shpbottom0\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz0\shplid2049
{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 19050}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8192\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx0\dppty0\dpx0\dpy0\dpxsize0\dpysize0\dplinew30\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop7\shpright9360\shpbottom7\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz1\shplid2050{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 12192}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8193\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx9360\dppty0
\dpx0\dpy7\dpxsize9360\dpysize0\dplinew19\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{\insrsid8786812 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6
\pnlcrm\pnstart1 {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1 {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1 }\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 GUAM TOP BUILDERS, INC.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  and
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 EJONG CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD.,
\par }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Plaintiffs-Appellants,}{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 v.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 TANOTA }{\b\insrsid9988721 PARTNERS, HAFA ADAI PROPERTIES,
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 AES CONSTRUCTION, INC., and JOHN DOES I - V,
\par }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Defendants-Appellees.}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Supreme Court Case No. CVA03-014
\par Superior Court Case Nos. CV0558-99 and CV2469-98 (consolidated)}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 OPINION}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Filed: March 13, 2006}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 2006 Guam 3}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam 
\par Argued and submitted on February 18, 2004
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trkeep\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4410\clshdrawnil \cellx4410\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4950\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15231707 {\ul\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appearing for Appellants}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 :
\par Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr., Esq.
\par Tarpley & Moroni, LLP
\par Bank of Hawaii Bldg., Ste. 402
\par 134 W. Soledad Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \cell }{\ul\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appearing for Appellees Tanota Partners 
\par and Hafa Adai Properties}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 :
\par Arthur B. Clark, Esq.
\par Calvo & Clark, LLP
\par 655 S. Marine Dr.
\par Tamuning, Guam 96913}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\ul\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appearing for Appellee AES Construction, Inc.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 :
\par Thomas C. Sterling, Esq.
\par Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson
\par Suite 1008, Pacific News Bldg.
\par 238 Archbishop Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trkeep\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4410\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4410\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4950\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 BEFORE:}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEW
OOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 TORRES, J.:}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [1]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Plaintiff-Appellant Ejong Construction Co., Ltd. supplied steel and other materials in 1997 and 1998 for the construction of the Outrigger Hotel in Tumon, Guam, owned by De
fendants-Appellees Tanota Partners and Hafa Adai Properties (collectively \'93Tanota\'94).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong later filed a mechanic\rquote 
s lien for record with the Department of Land Management upon}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 the Outrigger Hotel for an amount which Ejong asserts remains due for the steel and materials it supplied.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong thereafter filed an action in the Superior Court seeking to enforce payment of its claim and for foreclosure of the lien amended in the amount of $1,728,284.67.}{
\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 1{\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 1 }{\insrsid8786812  }{
\fs20\insrsid8786812 The case below is actually a consolidated action for money loaned and to foreclose on claims of lien filed against the Outrigger.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 See}{\fs20\insrsid8786812  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 
Ejong Constr. Co. Ltd. v. Sherman}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 , Superior Court Civil Case No. CV2469-98 and }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 Guam Top Builders v. Tanota Partners}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 , Superior Court Civil Case No. CV0558-99.}}}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Tanota moved for summary judgment on the basis that Ejong was paid in full for the materials supplied to the Outrigger Hotel, that the lien amount was not a claim for materials provided but, included a c
laim for money paid to John K. Sherman, President of AES Construction, Inc. (\'93AES\'94) and that the claims of lien were ineffective for lack of verification.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The trial court granted Tanota\rquote s motion for summary judgment in part, invalidating Ejong\rquote s claim of mechanics lien against the Outrigger Hotel to the extent it exceeded $5,000.00.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong seeks interlocutory appeal of that decision.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
We reverse the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. }{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 I.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [2]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab In 1996, Tanota hired AES as the prime contractor to construct the Outrigger Hotel.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong provided steel and other materials for the project, but did not have a written contract with Tanota, AES or AES\rquote  subcontractor, Guam Top Builders (\'93Guam Top\'94).}{
\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [3]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Ejong was paid $311,764.71 in cash for its first shipment of materials.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Subsequently, between February 21, 1997 and October 6, 1997, payments were made through six documentary letters of credit issued by Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation\rquote s (\'93HSBC\'94) Guam bran
ch upon presentation of invoices and other required documents for each shipment.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 2{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 2}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 The following six (6) documentary letters of credit totaling $9,175,468.40 were issued by HSBC and negotiated by Ejong:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 1.  February 21, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970069 for $600,000.00, later increased to $667,088.40.
\par 2.  March 20, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970107 for $1,500,000.00.
\par 3.  April 24, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970151 for $3,500,000.00.
\par 4.  June 23, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970231 for $2,000,000.00, later increased to $2,600,000.00.
\par 5.  August 12, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970312 for $258,380.00, $110,000.00 of which expired without payment.
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 6.  October 6, 1997, Documentary Credit 700 DC Gum No. 970401 for $760,000.00.}}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong submitted ten (10) invoices when negotiating the letters of credit totaling $8,875,468.40}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 3{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 3}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 The record on appeal includes ten invoices from Ejong in the amounts of (1) $367,088.40, (2) $1,500,000.00, (3) $1,777,970.00, (4
) $785,000.00, (5) $937,030.00, (6) $920,000.00, (7) $1,680,000.00, (8) $144,680.86, (9) $3,699.14, and (10) $760,000.00.  There is also a receipt dated March 7, 1997 from Guam Top Builders in the amount of $300,000.00 acknowledging an \'93
advance which is to be used to purchase and ship the merchandise for which this documentary credit is opened.\'94  Appellant\rquote 
s ER, Tab CR6 (Guam Top Receipt).  There is no dispute that Ejong negotiated the letters of credit and the cumulative total of the invoices and receipt is $9,175,468.40.}}}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 .}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 No other payment method was used to pay for any steel or material shipped during this period other than the six letters of credit.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [4]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab One letter of credit in the amount of $1,500,000.00, for the benefit of Guam Top,}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 4{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 4}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 The February 21,
 1997 letter of credit in the original amount of $600,000.00 also named Guam Top as the beneficiary.  }}}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  was negotiated}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
by Ejong on March 20, 1997, drawn down upon presentation of the required documents to HSBC, including, an invoice in that exact amount for steel shipped to Guam by Ejong.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
After depositing those funds in its corporate bank account, Ejong disbursed $38,823.53 to Sherman.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong negotiated another letter of credit in the amount of $3,500,000.00 on April 24, 1997, again upon proper presentation 
of required documents which included three separate invoices from Ejong for steel shipped to Guam in the amounts of $937,030.00, $785,000.00 and $1,777,970.00.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Those funds were also deposited in Ejong\rquote s corporate bank account, and Ejong, during the next several weeks, disbursed $884,589.25 to Sherman.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Including the earlier disbursement, Sherman received a total of $923,412.78 from Ejong.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong also disbursed $1,234,492.82 to Guam Top from the proceeds of the letters of credit and Guam Top received an additional $188,235.92 in cash.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Guam Top therefore received a total of $1,422,728.11.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record (\'93ER\'94), Tab CR11, at 3 (Park Decl.).}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 5
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 5}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
The declaration of Jae H. Park, the president of Guam Top, indicates the proceeds from the letters of cre
dit totaling $9,030,787.54 were allocated to Ejong ($6,872,881.94), Guam Top ($1,234,492.82) and Sherman ($923,412.78).  However, the letters of credit attached to the declaration of Steve Grantham, then HSBC\rquote 
s Senior Vice President Corporate Banking, refl
ect the total proceeds from the letters of credit were $9,175,468.40.  The difference in proceeds of $144,680.86 is attributable to an invoice for that amount negotiated against the August 12, 1997 Documentary Credit 700DCGUM No. 970312.  The record on ap
peal does not reflect how the additional proceeds of $144,680.86 were allocated between Ejong, Guam Top and Sherman. }}}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [5]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab After shipping all of the materials to Guam, Ejong prepared a final accounting for the Outrigger Hotel project that refle
cted a final reconciliation of the amount owed for materials it supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The Grand Total reflected in this Material Cost Breakdown was $8,113,266.80 an amount that was less than the invoices Ejong prepared to negotiate the letters of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Since some of
 the monies Ejong received from the letters of credit had been disbursed to Sherman and Guam Top, Ejong determined that it had not been fully paid the $8,113,266.80 Ejong believed that it was owed for the materials supplied.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong then recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the Outrigger Hotel on March 10, 1999 in the amount of $928,620.15.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 6{\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 6}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
The amount of the original claim for lien of $928,620.15 was based on the difference between the Grand Total of $8,113,266.80, reflected in Ejong\rquote s Material Cost 
Breakdown, and the $7,184,646.65 Ejong alleges it was paid from the proceeds of the letters of credit ($6,872,881.94) and in cash ($311,764.71).}}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong filed the underlying lawsuit to enforce payment of its claim and foreclose its original lien.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 On June 29
, 1999, Ejong filed another claim of lien increasing its claim by $799,664.52 to $1,728,284.67.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong asserted that since AES, Tanota, and Guam Top each purportedly denied there was a contract to buy steel and materials from Ejong, Ejong was entitled to $8
,912,931.32, the reasonable value of the materials it supplied, rather than the amount reflected in its Material Cost Breakdown of $8,113,266.80.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The trial court permitted Ejong to amend its complaint to reflect the amended claim of lien amount.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [6]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Tanota moved for summary judgment on Ejong\rquote s claim seeking foreclosure of Ejong\rquote 
s amended claim of lien against the Outrigger Hotel in the amount of $1,728,284.67.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Tanota argued that Ejong was paid in full for the materials supplied to the Outrigger Hotel, that
 the lien amount was not a claim for materials provided, as it included a claim for money paid to Sherman and that the claims of lien were ineffective for lack of verification.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 7}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 Tanota does not dispute the applicability of Guam
\rquote s mechanic\rquote s lien law to Ejong\rquote s supplying of steel for use in the construction of the Outrigger Hotel, or the viability of Ejong\rquote s claim seeking foreclosure of its lien if amounts remain due and owing to it for the steel.}}}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The trial court issued its Decision and Order denying Tanota\rquote s motion for summary judgment with regard to the verification of Ejong\rquote s lien.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The court found that a mechanics lien claim signed and verified by a claimant\rquote s attorney is sufficiently verified; however, the trial court granted Tanota\rquote 
s motion, invalidating Ejong\rquote s amended claim of lien to the extent it exceeded $5,000.00.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The court determined \'93
that as a matter of law when Ejong negotiated its invoices against the letter of credit, the money it received was payment for the steel it shipped to Guam for the Outrigger.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR16 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The court also ruled that Ejong\rquote 
s attempt to increase the lien amount based on the reasonable value of the materials had no merit and was invalid because Ejong had acquiesced, without objection, t
o the amounts set forth in the invoices Ejong prepared when it negotiated the letters of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The court believed that if Ejong did not agree to sell the materials at the price invoiced, Ejong waived the opportunity to object pursuant to Title 13 GCA \'a7 2208 when it negotiated the letters of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong appealed.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 II.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [7]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Title}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 3108(b) (2005), which provides, }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 inter alia}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , that \'93[o]rders other than final judgments shall be avai
lable to immediate appellate review as provided by law . . . .\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Furthermore, Title 7 GCA \'a7
 25102(e) (2005), specifically allows an appeal in a civil action or proceeding to be taken \'93[f]rom an order discharging or refusing to discharge an attachment.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 We f
ind that a mechanic\rquote s lien is analogous to an attachment, therefore an interlocutory appeal of the trial court\rquote s Decision and Order is a matter of right provided for by law.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See e.g. Buckminster v. Arcadia Vill. Resort, Inc.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 565 A.2d 313, 315 (Me. 1989); }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Amatrudi v. Blake}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, 117 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960). }{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 III.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [8]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab \'93A trial court\rquote s decision granting a motion for summary judgment is reviewed }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 de novo}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 .\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Bank of Guam v. Flores}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6 7.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See Manvil Corp. v. E.C. Gozum & Co.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 1998 Guam 20 \'b6 6; }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int\rquote l (Guam), Inc.}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 1997 Guam 10 \'b6 7.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'93
In rendering a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw inferences and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.\'94 }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Flores}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, 2004 Guam 25}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'b6 7 (citing }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Edward v. Pac. Fin. Corp.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2000 Guam 27).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'93If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the [pleadings] . . . , but must produce at least some signific
ant probative evidence tending to support the [pleadings] . . . .\'94 }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  (quoting }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Edwards}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2000 Guam 27 \'b6
 7) (alteration in original).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Consequently, this court\rquote s \'93ultimate inquiry is to determine whether the \lquote specific fact\rquote  set forth by the nonmoving party, 
coupled with undisputed background or contextual facts, are such that a rational or reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor based on that evidence.\'94 }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  (quoting }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Iizuka Corp.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 1997 Guam 10 \'b6 8).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [9]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The trial court may grant summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure if}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
\'93the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id. }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 at \'b6 8 (quoting Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c)).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'93
A material fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.\'94}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id. }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 (citing }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Edwards}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2000 Guam 27}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'b6 7).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [10]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab \'93[T]he mere existence of }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 some}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
 alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 genuine}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  issue of }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 material }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 fact.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'93As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disp
utes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id. }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 at 248.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'93There is a genuine issue, if there is \lquote sufficient evidence\rquote  which establishes a factual dispute requiring resolution by a fact-finder.\'94 }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Iizuka Corp.}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 ,1997 Guam 10 \'b6 7 (citation ommitted).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 IV.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [11]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Ejong argues that questions of material fact exist regarding whether a contract was formed 
and whether Ejong received all of the payments due which preclude granting of summary judgment.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
More specifically, Ejong believes that a question of material fact remains in dispute regarding the amount to be paid for the supplied steel and materials.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejon
g argues because there was no express contract or meeting of the minds as to the essential terms, Ejong is entitled to a reasonable value for the steel and other materials.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong maintains the reasonable value for the steel is $8,912,931.32 which is the ac
tual cost of the steel including fabrication plus a reasonable allowance for overhead and profit rather than the Grand Total of $8,113,266.80 shown in the Material Cost Breakdown.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong further contends that a question of material fact remains in dispute regarding the amount Ejong was paid for the material supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Although funds were received by Ejong after it negotiated the letters of credit, Ejong submits not all of such funds were payments for the steel and materials because Ejong disbursed $923,412.78
 to Sherman and $1,234,492.82 to Guam Top as part of the entire deal involving construction of the Outrigger Hotel.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 We first consider Ejong\rquote 
s argument that in the absence of an agreement Ejong is entitled to the reasonable value of the materials furnished and should be permitted to increase its claim of lien by the $799,664.52 reflected in the June 29, 1999 amended Claim of Lien. }{
\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 A.}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The Amount of Ejong\rquote s Lien}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [12]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Ejong asserts that a question
 of material fact exists as to whether there was an agreement on the amount to be paid for the steel Ejong shipped to Guam for the Outrigger Hotel project.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong alleges AES, Tanota, and Guam Top each denied the existence of an agreement with Ejong and in 
the absence of an agreement, Ejong claims it is entitled to the reasonable value of the steel of $8,912,931.32 and not the amount of $8,113,266.80 shown in Ejong\rquote s final reconciliation.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [13]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Guam\rquote s lien statute imposes a limit on the amount a materialman is permitted to claim: \'93
Such liens shall not in any case exceed in amount the reasonable value of the labor done or materials furnished, or both, for which the lien is claimed, nor the price agreed upon for the same between the claimant and the person by whom he was employed.
\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 33205(a) (2005).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Applying that statute in the instant case, Ejong could not properly claim a lien for any amount in excess of the price}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 it agreed upon.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong is correct in asserting, however, that in the absence of an agreement it is permitted to claim the reasonable value of the materials it provided.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The amount of Ejong\rquote s lien therefore depends on whether there was an agreement for the price of the material Ejong supplied.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 8{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 8}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 Section 33205(a) states that a lien amount cannot 
exceed the price agreed upon \'93between the claimant and the person by whom he was employed.\'94  Title 7 GCA \'a7 33205(a).  If an agreement existed between Ejong and \'93the person}{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812  }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 by whom he was employed
\'94 regarding the price of steel, Ejong cannot claim a greater amount.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid8786812   Furthermore, Title 7 GCA \'a7 33202(c) states that for the purposes of enforcement of liens \'93
every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or other person having charge of the construction, alteration, addition to, or repair, in whole or in part, of any building or other work of improvement shall be held to be the agent of the owner.\'94
  Title 7 GCA \'a7 33202(c) (2005).  Therefore, if it can be shown that Ejong had an agreement with Guam Top, AES or Tanota regarding the price of the materials it supplied, that agreed upon price would establish a limit on the amount of Ejong\rquote 
s lien.}}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [14]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab It is undisputed that no written contract exists regarding Ejong\rquote s sale of materials for use in the Outrigger project.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Under Guam law, \'93[a] contract is either express or implied.\'94 18 GCA \'a7 86101 (2005).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
As there was no express contract, we must examine the conduct of the parties in order to determine whether there was an agreement on the price to be paid for the material Ejong supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 18 GCA \'a7 86103 (2005) (\'93An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct.\'94).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [15]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The trial court invalidated the amount of Ejong\rquote s lien to the extent it exceeded $5,000.00.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The trial court, relying in part on Title 13 GCA \'a7 2208, found that Ejong negotiated six letters of credit and concluded, \'93
If, as Ejong argues, it did not agree to sell the materials at the price it invoiced, it waived the opportunity to object when it negotiated the letter of credit.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote 
s ER, Tab CR16, at 6 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [16]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The trial court relied heavily on its findings that Ejong prepared invoices for the materials when it negotiated the letters of credit in invalidating the amount of Ejong
\rquote s lien.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The letters of credit involved in this case are typical, involving three parties and three separate transactions.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The parties include, AES (the buyer/applicant), Ejong (the seller/beneficiary), and HSBC (the issuing bank). The three transactions involved are: }{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 1)}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 the underlying transaction between the b
uyer and the seller, under which the seller agrees to sell the goods to the buyer and the buyer agrees to pay to the seller the purchase price by way of a letter of credit arrangement;}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 2)}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 the transaction between the buyer and the bank, under which the ban
k agrees to issue the letter of credit in favor of the seller and the buyer agrees to reimburse the bank for the payment made under the letter of credit plus a commission; and,}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 3)}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
the transaction between the bank and the seller, i.e., the letter of credit itself, under which the bank agrees to take the primary responsibility to honor the seller\rquote 
s draft provided it is accompanied by the required documents specified in the letter of credit.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Gao Xiang & Ross P. Buckley, }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The Unique Jurisprudence of Letters of Credit: Its Origin and Sources}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 4 San Diego Int\rquote l L.J. 91, 97 (2003).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [17]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Courts have recognized that letters of credit are separate and independent of the contracts which generate them.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See e.g. Demczyk v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (In re Graham Square, Inc.)}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 126 F.3d 823, 827 (6th Cir. 1997).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 In }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Alaska Textile Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , the Second Circuit Court of Appeals observed:}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The fundamental principle governing doc
umentary letters of credit and the characteristic which gives them their international commercial utility and efficacy is that the obligation of the issuing bank to honour a draft on a credit when it is accompanied by documents which appear on their face 
to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit is independent of the performance of the underlying contract for which the credit was issued.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 982 F.2d 813, 815 (2d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 see also }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Gerald T. McLaughlin, }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Letters of Credit and Illegal Contracts: The Limits of the Independence Principle}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 49 Ohio St. L.J. 1197, 1197 (1989).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The independence principle or doctrine of independence is embodied in the International Chamber of Commerce Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ICC Publication No. 500 (rev. 1993) (\'93UCP\'94)}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 9
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 9}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
The UCP is a set of standard terms incorporated into the majority of documentary credits issued around the world. Xiang & Buckley, }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 supra}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 , at 94.  }}}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, which is relevant to our discussion as HSBC made presentation of each of the letters of credit received by Ejong subject to its terms.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 10{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 10}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
Letters of credit are also governed under Guam law by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which is found in Division 5 of Title 13 GCA. Xiang and Buckley explain the applicability of the UCC versus the UCP 500 to documentary letters of credit as follows:

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 The only jurisdiction in which credits are virtually ever issued not subject to the UCP is the United States and this only because of Article 5 of the [UC
C]. Even then the only credits issued without incorporating the UCP are domestic ones for transactions entirely within the United States.  When the UCC and UCP apply to the one credit, \'a7
 5-116(c) of the UCC provides that to the extent of any conflict between the two sets of rules, the UCP will prevail unless the term of the UCC is one that cannot be varied by agreement.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid8786812 Xiang & Buckley, }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 supra}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 , at 94 n.5.  This provision of the UCC is not found in Guam\rquote 
s version of the UCC, but no particular terms are challenged or in conflict in the present case.}}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR6 (Grantham Decl.).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  
}{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See also Nassar v. Florida Fleet Sales Inc.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 79 F.Supp.2d 284, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (\'93This independence principle is embodied in the UCP.\'94).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }
{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Specifically, UCP Article 3 provides in part that \'93
[c]redits, by their nature, are separate transactions from the sales or other contract(s) on which they may be based . . . . Consequently, the undertaking of a bank to pay, accept and pay Draft(s) or negotiate and/or to fulfill any othe
r obligation under the Credit, is not subject to claims or defenses by the Applicant resulting from his relationships with the Issuing Bank or the Beneficiary.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 U.C.P. art. 3, }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 available at }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 http://www.ykl.co.kr/eng/logis/ucp.html.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 UCP Article 4 goes on to state that \'93
[i]n all Credit operations all parties concerned deal with documents, and not with goods, services and/or other performances to which the documents may relate.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 U.C.P. art. 4.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 According to the independence principle, the fact that Ejong negotiat
ed and received proceeds from the letters of credit, while relevant, is not itself determinative of the existence of an agreement to supply materials or the terms of any such agreement.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [18]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Turning to the facts of this case, it is undisputed that Ejong shipped the steel and that the steel was accepted and used in the construction of the Outrigger Hotel.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The record reflects that Ejong presented ten (10) commercial invoices when negotiating the letters of credit totaling $8,875,468.40.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Contrary to statements made by the Appellees, it does not appear that \'93[e]ach invoice reflected a unit price for every ounce of steel being shipped.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellees\rquote  Br., at 13 (Dec. 26, 2003).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 In fact, only one invoice in the record provides a detailed breakdown of quantities and unit prices.}{
\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 11{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 11}{\insrsid8786812   }{
\fs20\insrsid8786812 Two invoices make reference to detailed riders which are not contained in the record.}}}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [19]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Mr. Jong Kwan Lee, Ejong\rquote s President, testified during his deposition that the unit prices for the steel was \'93discussed and decided\'94 with Guam To
p representatives ahead of time, and that there was an agreement between Lee and Jae Park, President of Guam Top, about unit prices.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote 
s ER, Tab CR12, at 16, 32, Ex. 1, 2 (Tarpley Decl.).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Park, however, has never testified about the existence or terms of such an agreement.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Lee further stated that he recorded the agreed upon per-unit figures on a memo pad which disappeared \'93when they actually was [sic] working together,\'94 but that the unit prices for the steel Ejong supplied were \'93
computed\'94 by the unit prices recorded on the memo pad.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR12, at 19, Ex. 1, 2 (Tarpley Decl.).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [20]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The question before this court is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding th
e existence and terms of an agreement for the price of steel and other materials Ejong provided.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The record indicates a discrepancy exists between the amount Ejong invoiced when it negotiated the letters of credit and the Grand Total reflected in the Material Cost Breakdown prepared by Ejong after all of the materials had been shipped to Guam.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The Material Cost Breakdown, which represents a final reconciliation of the amount of material Ejong provided, contains unit prices (\'93U/P\'94) and}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707 
 }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 identifies a \'93Grand Total\'94 of $8,113,266.80.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Based on this evidence, there is over a $700,000.00 difference between the amount Ejong claims is due and the invoiced amount of $8,875,468.40, not}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
including the $311,764.71 Ejong received in cash for the first shipment of steel and the $300,000.00 referenced in the Guam Top Receipt.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [21]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The trial court, citing Title 13 GCA \'a7 2208,}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 12{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 12}{\fs20\insrsid8786812  Title 13 \'a7 2208 states in part: \'93
Where the contract for sale involves repeated occasions for performance by either party with knowledge of the nature
 of the performance and opportunity for objection to it by the other, any course of performance accepted or acquiesced in without objection shall be relevant to determine the meaning of the agreement.\'94  13 GCA \'a7 2208 (2005)}{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 
.  }}}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  reasoned that Ejong was bound by the amount of the invoices based on the course of performance between the parties.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The court found that \'93
[e]ach time Ejong prepared an invoice the amount of money it required for payment was obviously calculated by multiplying the unit costs of each item as established through the deposition of Mr. Lee by the quantity of each unit shipped to Guam.\'94}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR16, at 6 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
However, as the record demonstrates, the total amount Ejong invoiced when negotiating the letters of credit was $8,875,468.40.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong concedes}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 it was paid $7,184,646.65.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Setting aside any disputed payments, if one were to accept that the agreed contract amount is the invoiced amount based on a course of performance, Ejong\rquote s claim of lien would actually increase.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Instead of the original lien amount of $928,620.15, Ejong would be entitled to claim, subject to any defenses that may be raised, a lien amount of $1,690,821.75 which represents the difference between the invoiced amount of $8,875,468.40 and the amoun
t Ejong concedes it was paid.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [22]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The trial court also cited Title 7 GCA \'a7 33401 as the basis for invalidating all but $5,000.00 of Ejong\rquote s lien.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 This provision states:}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \'a7 33401.}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Lien not Invalidated by Mistakes in Statement: Exceptions.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
No mistake or errors in the statement of the demand, or of the amount of credits and offsets allowed or of the balance asserted to be due to claimant, or in the description of the property against which the claim is filed, shall invalidate the lien, }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 unless the court finds that such mistake or error}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  in the statement of the demand, credits and offsets, or of the balance due, }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
was made with the intent to defraud}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , or the court shall find that an innocent third party, without notice, direct or constructive, has, 
since the claim was filed, become the bona fide owner of the property liened upon, and that the notice of claim was so deficient that it did not put the party upon further inquiry in any manner.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 33401 (2005) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The trial court, howe
ver, made no finding regarding any \'93intent to defraud.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 In fact, nothing in the court\rquote s order refers to fraud at all.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The trial court\rquote s reliance on Title 7 GCA \'a7 33401 as a basis to invalidate the lien was}{\insrsid12345658  not supported in its decision.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [23]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab After examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, we hold that a genuine issue of material fact remains over the existence and}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 terms of an agreement regarding the price of materials Ejong supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong is entitled to claim a
 lien for the price it agreed upon or, in the absence of an agreement, the reasonable value of the material it supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 33205.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ascertaining the existence and terms of a contract price agreed upon is essential to establishing the limit on the a
mount of the lien Ejong can claim under Guam law, but neither the conduct of the parties nor the evidence in the record adequately resolve this question.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Even assuming arguendo that Ejong agreed to unit prices for the materials it provided, a question remains over whether the total contract price agreed upon is the invoiced amount or the amount reflected in the Material Cost Breakdown.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 As such, summary judgment invalidating the amount of Ejong\rquote s lien to the extent it exceeded $5,000.00 was improper.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Flores}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6 33 (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate where a question of material fact exists).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 B.}{\b\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong\rquote s Claim that an Agreement Existed Regarding the Allocation of Funds it Received}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [24]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Ejong does not dispute that it received $500,000.0
0 in cash, $188,235.29 of which was disbursed to Guam Top, and negotiated $9,030,787.54 from the letters of credit for a total of $9,530,787.54.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 13{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 13}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
This figure does not take into account an invoice in the amount of $144,680.68 discussed }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 infra}{\fs20\insrsid8786812 .  }}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote 
s ER, Tab CR11, at 3 (Park Decl.).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong concedes that, of this amount, it applied $7,184,646.65 toward payment of the steel and other materials it provided.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong disbursed $1,714,107.74 of the balance of the proceeds it received to Guam Top and $923,412.78 to Sherman.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 14{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 14}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 
Park testified in his declaration that Guam Top paid $291,379.63 to Ejong for job site fabrication.  Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR11, at 3 (Park Decl.).  }}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists over whether its claim of lien should be offset by the funds disbursed to Sherman since those funds were earmarked for and disbursed to Sherman according to an agreement made by the parties.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 33302(i)(1) (2005) (stating that a party recording a claim of lien must include \'93
a statement of demand after deducting all just credits and offsets\'94).}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [25]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Materialmen have a statutory right to impose a lien upon property they have furnished materials for under Guam law.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 7 GCA \'a7 33201 (2005); }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 see also Brigham Constr. and Dev., Inc. v. Lucky Dev. Co.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, No. Civ. 95-00051A, 1996 WL 104531, at * 2 (D. Guam App. Div. Mar. 6, 1996) (\'93Mechanic\rquote s liens are statutory remedies, providing a form of }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 in rem}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
 security, when properly perfected according to the strict requirements of the statute.\'94).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Payment or non-payment, is not a statutory requirement that must be alleged by a materialman seeking to enforce a lien.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 15{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 15}{\insrsid8786812   }{\fs20\insrsid8786812 Title 7 GCA \'a7
 33302(i) sets forth what a claim of lien must contain: (1) a statement of demand after deducting all just credits 
and offsets; (2) the name of the owner or reputed owner if known; (3) a general statement of the kind of . . . materials furnished . . .; (4) the name of the person [to] whom . . . the materials were furnished; and (5) a description of the property sought
 to be charged with the lien sufficient for identification.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 See}{\fs20\insrsid8786812  7 GCA \'a7 33302 (i) (2005).  }}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
In fact, Rule 8 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure provides that payment is an affirmative defense which must be pled.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Guam R. Civ. P. 8(c).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Furthermore, courts have recognized that payment is an affirmative defense against a party seeking to enforce a materialman\rquote s lien: \'93
The defense of payment is affirmative, and is never established by mere proof that the claimant has received money; the proof must go further, and establish that the money so received can be applied in discharge of the debt or obligation sued upon.\'94}{
\i\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Bay Lumber Co. v. Pickering}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 7 P.2d 371, 374 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1932); }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 see also Livesay v. Lee Hing}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 9 P.2d 133, 134 (Or. 1932); }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Robertson Lumber Co. v. State Bank of Edinburg}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 105 N.W. 719, 720 (N.D. 1905) (\'93
A defense of payment is an affirmative defense to be raised by answer.\'94).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Moreover, \'93[w]here the plaintiff has proven the creation of a debt within the period of statute of l
imitations, the burden is on the defendant to prove payment.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Hollywood Wholesale Electric Co. v. John Baskin, Inc.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, 263 P.2d 665, 669 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1953) (citation omitted) }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 overruled on other grounds in Jessup Farms v. Baldwin}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 660 P.2d 813 (Cal. 1983).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  
}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Tanota had the burden of 1) pleading payment as an affirmative defense and 2) of establishing that payment was made to Ejong.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [26]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab There is no evidence on the record which demonstrates that either Tanota or AES pled payment as an affirmative defense.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 As that issue was not briefed or raised by any party, we merely point out that, on remand, the trial court may grant Tanota and AES leave to amend their Answers after considering the factors set forth in }{
\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Foman v. Davis}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 371 U.S. 178 (1962).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See Arashi & Co. v. Nakashima Enter., Inc.}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2005 Guam 21 \'b6 16.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [27]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab 
Secondly, Tanota argues that Ejong had no right to place a lien on the Outrigger project once it negotiated its invoices against the letters of credit and received the proceeds.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The trial court agreed finding \'93that as a matter of law when Ejong negotiated its invoices against the letter of credit, the money it received was payment for the steel it shipped to Guam for the Outrigger.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR16, at 5 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The trial court f
urther interpreted the $923,412.78 amount as a loan, noting that Ejong had admitted that upon disbursing the money to Sherman, Ejong \'93understood that it was to loan.\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 We disagree.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [28]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The fact that each of the letters of credit was properly negotiated by Ejong and honored by HSBC pursuant to Ejong\rquote 
s presentation of complying documents specified in each letter of credit and that cash was properly paid out to Ejong pursuant to the letters of credit is undisputed.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
However, according to the independence principle discussed }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 supra}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, the obligations of AES, Ejong and HSBC under the letters of credit were separate and independent of the rights and obligations that arose in the underlying contract.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Once Ejong complied with the terms of the letters of credit, HSBC had an obligation to distribute the proceeds of the letters of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See In re Graham Square, Inc.}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 126 F.3d 823 at 827 (\'93It is well established that once a beneficiary complies with the terms of the letter of credit, an account party may not prevent t
he issuing bank from distributing the proceeds of the letter of credit, absent fraud in the underlying contract.\'94) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
The transaction between Ejong and HSBC did not extinguish Ejong\rquote s statutory right to claim a materialman\rquote s lien.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 16{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 16}{\fs20\insrsid8786812  Our 
holding is not meant to diminish the utility of letters of credit in commercial transactions.  Letters of credit, however, were never intended to function as a waiver of materialman\rquote 
s statutory right to claim a lien or to discharge the duties of either buyers or sellers under the contracts which generated them.  Other methods exist, such as a waiver of lien, which may appropriately achieve this end. }{\i\fs20\insrsid8786812 See}{
\fs20\insrsid8786812  7 GCA \'a7 33207 (2005).  }}}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [29]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Furthermore, the fact that Ejong negotiated and received the proceeds of the letters of credit did not create an irrebuttable legal presumption of payment.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The trial court erred in finding that the letters of credit constituted payment as a matter of law.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [30]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab In the instant case, the burden was ultimately on Tanota and AES to demonstrate that Ejong received the funds and applied them toward payment of the materials.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 See Hollywood Wholesale Electric Co.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 263 P.2d at 669.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Ejong prepared ten invoices totaling $8,875,468.40 and received proceeds from the six documentary letters of credit in that amount.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 In addition, Ejong received}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 cash in the amount of $500,000.00 for its first shipment of steel.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
By offering the letters of credit and the Payment Register, Tanota and AES presented strong evidence that Ejong had been paid.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [31]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab In }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Post Bros. Constr. v. Yoder}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
, 569 P.2d 133 (Ca. 1977), the Supreme Court of California articulated the joint check payee rule.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Under the joint check rule there is a presumption that \'93[w
]hen a subcontractor and his materialman are joint payess, and no agreement exists with the owner or general contractor as to allocation of proceeds, the materialman by endorsing the check will be deemed to have received the money due him.\'94}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  at 135.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The court reiterated that \'93
the joint check rule will give way to an express or implied agreement of the maker and payees . . . .\'94}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Id.}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  at 136-7.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Although this case is factually distinguishable from the joint check payee scenario, we find the logic of }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Post Bros.}{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  persuasive.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 A materialman\rquote 
s claim of lien should not be offset by money that is allocated to another party if it can be shown that such allocation was done at the owner\rquote s or an agent of the owner\rquote s request.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid15231707 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [32]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Ejong argues that it disbursed funds to Sherman according to a prior agreement reached by the parties.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
It is undisputed that Ejong disbursed $923,412.78 to Sherman.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Ejong\rquote s President testified that Ejong disbursed these funds to Sherman at Park\rquote s request.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab CR7, at 72, Ex. C (Clark Decl.).}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Furthermore, in addition to the amount transferred to Sherman, it is undisputed that Ejong disbursed $1,525,872.45 of the funds it received from the letters of credit to Guam Top.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
Drawing inferences and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Ejong, }{\i\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Flores}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 , 2004 Guam 25 \'b6
 7, we hold that there remains a genuine issue of material fact, namely, whether Ejong allocated the proceeds of the letters of credit and the cash it received according to an agreement made by the parties.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [33]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab There is an additional question over Ejong\rquote s position that it was paid $7,184,646.65.}{
\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 There is evidence that the $7,184,646.65 Ejong admits to being paid fails to take into account an invoice in the amount of $144,680.86 dated August 13, 1997, that it negotia
ted against a letter of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Park provided a breakdown of payments in his declaration that identifies Ejong was paid a total of $7,184,646.65, which is consistent with Ejong\rquote 
s position at the trial court.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Park lists a letter of credit in the amount of $3,699.14.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
However, it appears that Ejong also negotiated a commercial invoice in the amount of $144,680.86 against that letter of credit dated August 12, 1997, in the amount of $258,380.00.}{\super\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 17{\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8786812 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8786812 17}{\fs20\insrsid8786812  HSBC\rquote s records indicate that $110,000.00 of that letter of cre
dit expired.  }}}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
There is nothing in the record to indicate whether Ejong was the sole beneficiary of the $144,680.86, or how those funds were applied, therefore a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute. }{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 V.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12345658 {\insrsid15231707 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15231707 {\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [34]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab The existence and terms of an agreement are important to a materialman\rquote s right to claim a lien.}
{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 Such a determination cannot be based solely on the fact that a materialman negotiates and receives the proceeds of a letter of credit.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The conditions that must be met in order to receive the proceeds of a letter of credit are separate and independent of the agreements which generate them.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 We hold that a material fact remains in dispute regarding the existence of an agreement on the price and amount of materials Ejong actually supplied.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
We further find that the trial court erred in concluding that Ejong was paid as a matter of law once it negotiated its invoices against the letters of credit and received the proceeds.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 A materialman\rquote s claim of lien should not be offset by funds that it receives and then allocates to other parties pursuant to an agreement.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 
We hold that there remains an issue of material fact, namely, whether Ejong allocated the funds it received according to an ag}{\insrsid12345658 reement reached by the parties.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 [35]}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 \tab Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 REVERSE}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  the trial court\rquote s grant of summary judgment as to the increase in Ejong
\rquote s claim of lien of $799,664.52 reflected in its amended claim of lien and the trial court\rquote s invalidation of Ejong\rquote s claim for $928,000.00 to the extent it exceeded $5,000.00.}{\insrsid15231707\charrsid15231707  }{
\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 The matter is }{\b\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707 REMANDED}{\insrsid8786812\charrsid15231707  for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid15231707 
\par }}