KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. (EWS) filed this action in circuit court, seeking payment for electrical materials it supplied to a commercial building remodel in Jackson, Wyoming. The circuit court denied EWS's claims, and we granted a writ of review pursuant to W.R.A.P. 13.01, et seq. after the district court affirmed the circuit court's rulings. EWS asserts the circuit court erred by declaring its lien against Alane Fraser's1 property invalid for failing to follow the statutory notice requirements. EWS also challenges the circuit court's denial of its unjust enrichment claim against Ms. Fraser and the general contractor, M.J. Bishop Concrete & Construction, Inc. (Bishop Construction).

[¶ 2] We conclude the circuit court applied the wrong statute to the lien notice issue and erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. Fraser on the lien claim. However, we agree with the circuit court that EWS did not prove its unjust enrichment claim. We, therefore, affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] The dispositive issues in this case are:

1. Whether the circuit court applied the correct lien notification statute under the circumstances of this case.

2. Whether EWS provided timely notice of its filed lien to the property owner.

3. Whether EWS proved the elements of unjust enrichment.

FACTS

[¶ 4] Ms. Fraser hired Bishop Construction to remodel her commercial property in Jackson, Wyoming. Bishop Construction subcontracted with Jackson Hole Electric, Inc., also referred to as JHE 2, Inc., (hereinafter JHE) to perform electrical work on the project. Dusty Jones, vice-president of JHE, opened a general account with EWS, an electrical materials supplier, in July 2010. He also opened a job account for the Fraser project, called the Rafter J Café, in November 2010. JHE's application for the job account listed and provided addresses for Ms. Fraser as the owner, Bishop Construction as the general contractor, and JHE as the electrical contractor.

[¶ 5] On November 30, 2010, EWS notified Ms. Fraser and Bishop Construction that it was providing materials for the project. In the notice, EWS provided its contact information, including the address and telephone number for making payments. The notice also stated:

NOTICE TO OWNER

[¶ 6] EWS sent the notice to Ms. Fraser and Bishop Construction by certified mail, return receipt requested, as then required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-2-110 and 29-2-111 (LexisNexis 2010). Although the mailing addresses used by EWS were incorrect in some respects, the notices were delivered by the post office and signed for by representatives of the respective addressees. Ms. Fraser and Mr. Bishop specifically acknowledged receiving the notices.

[¶ 7] EWS supplied materials to JHE for use on the Rafter J Café project and regularly submitted invoices to JHE for payment. JHE paid the invoices for the first several months of the project, but in June 2011 began falling behind in its payments. The unpaid principal amount was $18,495.94.

[¶ 8] In the meantime, JHE submitted bills of over $92,000 to Bishop Construction for electrical work and materials on the job, and Bishop Construction paid JHE in full. Bishop Construction then billed Ms. Fraser over $1,000,000 for work on the project (including the electrical work), which she paid in full. Neither Bishop Construction nor Ms. Fraser requested lien waivers from EWS or JHE when they made their payments. JHE consolidated its revenue from all of its jobs and used the money to pay outstanding bills. With regard to its EWS accounts, JHE tended to pay those that had been in arrears the longest.

[¶ 9] In accordance with its policy, EWS suspended JHE's Rafter J Café account in September 2011 because it was more than sixty days past due. The café opened on November 11, 2011, and a few days later, November 16, 2011, EWS's legal counsel mailed a letter to Ms. Fraser, with copies to Bishop Construction and JHE, giving notice of its intent to file a lien against her property if the outstanding balance was not paid. The letter was certified and Ms. Fraser's teenaged son signed for it on December 6, 2011. Although Ms. Fraser could not recall when she first saw the letter, she did review it at some point and learned that EWS had not been paid. Mike Bishop of Bishop Construction did not remember receiving the letter, but became aware of it when he met with Ms. Fraser and Mr. Jones in late November or early December 2011 to discuss the situation. Ms. Fraser offered to pay EWS $15,000 to resolve the issue, but EWS rejected the offer. Mr. Jones assured her and Mr. Bishop that he would make arrangements to pay the bill, but he did not. On December 22, 2011, EWS recorded a lien against Ms. Fraser's property. It sent notice of its lien to Ms. Fraser on December 29, 2011.

[¶ 10] On May 31, 2012, EWS filed an action in the circuit court in Teton County, naming Ms. Fraser, Bishop Construction, JHE, and Mr. Jones as defendants.3 The complaint included causes of action for foreclosure of a construction lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and third party beneficiary. Mr. Jones and JHE failed to respond to the complaint and default was entered against them; however, JHE is defunct and EWS was unable to collect its judgment against either the company or Mr. Jones. EWS's third party beneficiary claim was dismissed with its consent.

[¶ 11] Ms. Fraser filed a motion for summary judgment on EWS's lien claim. She argued the lien was not effective because EWS had not complied with the statute which required it to send her notice of the lien within five days after it was filed. The circuit court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion and concluded the statute required mailing of a notice of the lien within five calendar days after recording and EWS had not complied with its obligation. The circuit court, therefore, granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Fraser, declaring the lien invalid. It subsequently denied EWS's motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment decision. The circuit court held a bench trial on EWS's unjust enrichment claim and entered judgment in favor of Ms. Fraser and Bishop Construction, concluding they did not have notice that EWS expected them to pay for the materials.

[¶ 12] EWS appealed to the district court, which affirmed the circuit court decisions. EWS then filed a petition for writ of review with the Wyoming Supreme Court, and we granted the petition.4

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[¶ 13] Two orders are at issue in this case and each requires application of a different standard of review. First, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Ms. Fraser, declaring EWS's lien against her property invalid. Summary judgments are governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c):

A summary judgment is subject to de novo review, meaning this Court reviews the same materials and applies the same standards as the lower court. "We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the record." Baker v. Speaks, 2014 WY 117, ¶ 9, 334 P.3d 1215, 1219 (Wyo.2014), quoting Hasvold v. Park County School Dist. No. 6, 2002 WY 65, ¶ 11, 45 P.3d 635, 637-38 (Wyo.2002) (other citations omitted).

[¶ 14] The circuit court conducted a bench trial on EWS's unjust enrichment claim. In general, we apply the following standard when reviewing a district court's decision after a bench trial:

Morris v. CMS Oil & Gas Co., 2010 WY 37, ¶ 12, 227 P.3d 325, 330 (Wyo.2010), quoting Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 2009 WY 65, ¶ 40, 208 P.3d 1296, 1308 (Wyo.2009) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

A. Which statute governed notification to the property owner of the lien filing?

[¶ 15] Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-2-101 (LexisNexis 2010), "every person performing any work on or furnishing any materials or plans for any building or any improvement upon land shall have for his work done or plans or materials furnished a lien upon the building or improvements."5 Under the statutory lien provisions, a claimant is required to comply with certain notice requirements. The lien in this case was filed in the county clerk's office on December 22, 2011, and EWS's counsel mailed notice of the lien to Ms. Fraser on December 29, 2011.

[¶ 16] Ms. Fraser argued that EWS's lien was invalid because it did not send notice to her within five calendar days after the lien was filed in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-312(c) (LexisNexis 2012):

[¶ 17] EWS claimed W.R.C.P. 6(a) applied to make its notification timely. Rule 6(a) provides:

(Emphasis added).

[¶ 18] In 2011, Christmas was on Sunday, so Monday, December 26, 2011, was the recognized legal holiday. Under Rule 6(a), if the holiday and the weekend days are excluded from the calculation, December 29, 2011, was the fourth day after filing and a notice sent that day would have been timely. The circuit court rejected EWS's argument about application of Rule 6(a) to the calculation of time under § 29-1-312(c).

[¶ 19] On appeal to the district court, EWS argued, in part, that § 29-1-312 did not apply to its lien filing and insisted that an earlier version of the statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 29-1-301(c) (LexisNexis 2009), applied instead. That statute included the following notice provision:

Section 29-1-301(c). EWS claimed it sent notice of its lien "promptly" as required by the statute.

[¶ 20] Section 29-1-312 went into effect July 1, 2011; however, the session law stated:

2010 Wyo. Sess. Laws Ch. 92, § 4, p. 425 (emphasis added). Given the Rafter J Café project commenced in late 2010, it is clear the former notice statute, § 29-1-301(c), applied to this case. Nevertheless, the district court refused to apply the earlier version of the statute because EWS had not specifically presented the argument to the circuit court.

[¶ 21] In general,

Gjertsen v. Haar, 2015 WY 56, ¶ 15, 347 P.3d 1117, 1123 (Wyo.2015). EWS represents that it was not aware of the provision making the revised statutory lien act applicable only to projects commenced on or after July 1, 2011, because that part of the law was not included in the printed version of the statute. We have confirmed that the printed versions of the 2010 supplement and the 2011 edition of the Wyoming Statutes did not include 2010 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Ch. 92, § 4, p. 425.7 Consequently, anyone using the printed versions of the revised statute was missing critical information about its effectiveness.

[¶ 22] 2010 Wyo. Sess. Laws, Ch. 92, § 4, p. 425 is, obviously, part of the statute. We interpret statutes de novo. Horning v. Penrose Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2014 WY 133, ¶ 10, 336 P.3d 151, 153 (Wyo.2014). Our usual rules of statutory interpretation provide:

Barlow Ranch, Ltd. Partnership v. Greencore Pipeline Co. LLC, 2013 WY 34, ¶ 18, 301 P.3d 75, 83 (Wyo.2013), citing Michael's Constr., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 2012 WY 76, ¶ 12, 278 P.3d 701, 705 (Wyo.2012). "When the language is clear, we give effect to the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed by the legislature." Horning, ¶ 13, 336 P.3d at 154. We apply our rules of statutory construction only when a statute is ambiguous. Id.

[¶ 23] The Wyoming Legislature was careful to include, in the enacted legislation, the provision limiting the applicability of the revised statute to projects commenced on or after July 1, 2011. The legislature's clear intent was for § 29-1-301 to apply to projects under construction prior to the effective date of § 29-1-312. In accordance with the principle that courts are charged with enforcing the legislature's actual intent, enrolled bills govern over incorrect or incomplete printed versions. See 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes § 39 (2015); 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 78 (2015).

[¶ 24] Application of the correct law to the Rafter J Café project implicates a fundamental matter that warrants consideration of EWS's argument. Furthermore, the circuit court actually discussed § 29-1-301(c) in its detailed decision on EWS's motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment, although it did not recognize the provision limiting the effectiveness of § 29-1-312. We will, therefore, apply the correct rule of law, as set out in the former statute, to determine the timeliness of EWS's lien notification.

B. Did EWS comply with the notification requirement of § 29-1-301(c)?

[¶ 25] As we stated above, § 29-1-301(c) required the lien claimant to give notice to the property owner "by certified mail... promptly after the lien statement is filed." Although the circuit court did not actually apply the earlier statute to EWS's lien, it stated that "[a]rguably, the plaintiff `promptly' mailed the lien notice to the defendant."

[¶ 26] "Promptly" is not an exact term. The plain meaning of "prompt" is "at once," "without delay," or "quick to act as occasion demands." Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1816 (2002). As the definition recognizes, what is "prompt" depends upon the situation. The Teton County Clerk recorded EWS's lien on December 22, 2011, and EWS's counsel, who practiced in Laramie, Wyoming, sent certified notice to Ms. Fraser that a lien had been recorded against her property on December 29, 2011. The week that passed between the date of filing and the date notice was sent included a weekend and Monday, December 26, 2011, a legal holiday, which obviously affected EWS's counsel's efforts to learn about the lien recording from the county clerk's office and to send the notice by certified mail. Under these circumstances, EWS promptly notified Ms. Fraser of the lien by certified mail. The circuit court erred by declaring the lien invalid and the district court erred by affirming the circuit court's decision.

C. Did the circuit court properly conclude that EWS was not entitled to a judgment on the theory of unjust enrichment?

[¶ 27] In addition to its lien claim, EWS presented a cause of action for unjust enrichment against the defendants.

Bowles v. Sunrise Home Center, Inc., 847 P.2d 1002, 1004 (Wyo.1993) (citations omitted).

[¶ 28] Bishop Construction moved for summary judgment on EWS's unjust enrichment claim, asserting that as a matter of law EWS could not satisfy the fourth element of unjust enrichment because it did not give Bishop Construction and Ms. Fraser notice that it would look to them for payment. The circuit court denied Bishop Construction's motion, finding there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. The circuit court then held a bench trial on EWS's unjust enrichment claim. After the trial, it issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order denying EWS's unjust enrichment claim because it had failed to prove the fourth element of the cause of action.

[¶ 29] As we stated in the standard of review section, above, a district court's factual findings after a bench trial are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. In addition, given unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, the trial court had considerable discretion in ruling on the claim. We will not interfere with the lower court's decision unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated. Windsor Energy Group, LLC v. Noble Energy, Inc., 2014 WY 96, ¶ 23, 330 P.3d 285, 291-92 (Wyo.2014) (discussing standard of review applicable to the district court's decision after a bench trial on a claim based upon the equitable doctrine of laches).

[¶ 30] The circuit court and, to some extent, the parties focused on the notice portion of the fourth element of unjust enrichment at trial, i.e., whether EWS reasonably notified Bishop Construction and Ms. Fraser that EWS expected to be paid by them. The circuit court ruled that neither Bishop Construction nor Ms. Fraser received adequate notice from EWS that it was looking to them for payment for the electrical supplies purchased by JHE on its account. The circuit court relied upon Bowles, 847 P.2d 1002, in arriving at its decision.

[¶ 31] Bowles was the owner of a construction project, Homestead was the original general contractor, and Sunrise supplied materials for the job on an account opened by Homestead. Homestead did not complete the job in a timely manner, so Bowles hired a second contractor, Thompson, to finish the project. Homestead, Bowles and Thompson all charged items to the job account with Sunrise. The account was not paid in full and Sunrise filed a lien against Bowles' property and then filed an action against Homestead, Bowles and Thompson. The action included counts for foreclosure of the lien and unjust enrichment. Bowles, 847 P.2d at 1003-04.

[¶ 32] The lien foreclosure claim was dismissed because "Sunrise failed to follow the strict statutory requirements of Wyoming's mechanic's lien laws." Id. at 1004. The district court held a bench trial on Sunrise's unjust enrichment claim, but Homestead declared bankruptcy so the only remaining defendants were Bowles and Thompson. The district court entered judgment in favor of Sunrise. On appeal, this Court reversed in part, concluding that Sunrise had not given sufficient notice to Bowles and Thompson that it expected them to pay for the materials purchased by Homestead for the project. However, we affirmed the judgment as it pertained to the items charged by each of them, concluding they had sufficient notice that they were expected to pay for those materials. We explained:

Id. at 1005.

Applying Bowles to the circumstances of this case, the circuit court stated:

The circuit court specifically found that the pre-lien notice sent by EWS on November 30, 2010,

(footnote omitted).

[¶ 33] We have concerns about the circuit court's analysis of the notice provided by EWS when it began providing materials for the job in late 2010. The notice, quoted in Paragraph 5 above, clearly placed the owner and general contractor on notice that, if JHE did not pay for the materials, they were at risk of having to pay for them. It warned them that they should obtain lien waivers prior to paying JHE in order to prevent having a lien placed on the property. The Bowles opinion does not describe the notice sent by Sunrise to the owner or second contractor, stating only that it failed to comply with the lien statutes. By contrast, we do know the contents of the lien notice in this case. It informed Ms. Fraser and Bishop Construction that EWS expected to be paid; EWS had the right to a lien on the property to secure payment for the electrical materials; and the owner was at risk of having to pay twice for the materials if lien waivers were not secured from the general contractor, the subcontractors and/or the materialmen.

[¶ 34] Although we have misgivings about the circuit court's rationale, we do not need to make a definitive ruling on the adequacy of EWS's notice for purposes of the unjust enrichment claim because the record does not demonstrate that either Bishop Construction or Ms. Fraser was unjustly enriched by the electrical materials supplied by EWS. The second part of the fourth element of unjust enrichment requires a showing that the party to be charged would be unjustly enriched if it were not required to pay.

Boyce v. Freeman, 2002 WY 20, ¶ 15, 39 P.3d 1062, 1065-66 (Wyo.2002). See also, Symons v. Heaton, 2014 WY 4, ¶ 16, 316 P.3d 1171, 1176 (Wyo.2014); Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, ¶ 146, 288 P.3d 1173, 1205-06 (Wyo. 2012).

[¶ 35] The evidence in this case clearly established that Bishop Construction paid JHE for all of the electrical services and materials billed on the Rafter J Café project. In turn, Ms. Fraser fully paid Bishop Construction for all of the labor and materials it billed on the project. JHE applied its business revenues as it saw fit and chose not to use the proceeds of the Rafter J Café project to pay off the EWS account. Given the general contractor and the owner paid all amounts due to JHE, it cannot be said that `good conscience' demands they pay EWS for the materials JHE installed in the project. They were not unjustly enriched by the materials from EWS. The party who was unjustly enriched by EWS's materials was JHE because it received full payment and did not apply the funds to pay off the job account.

[¶ 36] In Bowles, we discussed a case with facts very similar to the case at bar, Morrisville Lumber Co. v. Okcuoglu, 148 Vt. 180, 531 A.2d 887 (1987). We described the facts and holding of the Vermont case as follows:

Bowles, 847 P.2d at 1005. Like the Okcuoglus, Bishop Construction and Ms. Fraser paid for all of the benefits they received. Consequently, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that EWS was not entitled to relief under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.

[¶ 37] Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.