Cited by

Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quoting Nadeau) (alterations omitted).

t “a requirement for equitable subrogation in the context of a performing construction surety.” UPB, on the other hand, argues that the court of appeals properly applied the “mistake of fact” standard here, asserting that “[t]he ‘mistake of fact’ element embodies the maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, and not the negligent.’ ” See, e.g., Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

See, - 24 (Minn. 2011) (reviewing district court’s equitable-estoppel decision after bench trial for an abuse of discretion); Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (reviewing district court’s equitable-subrogation decision for an abuse of discretion); (reviewing district court’s decision on motion for equitable relief for an abuse of discretion); City of Cloquet v. Cloquet Sand & Gravel, Inc., 251

be substituted to the rights and position of the prior creditor.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quotations and citation omitted) (explaining that “equitable subrogation will be applied in the interest of substantial justice .

be substituted to the rights and position of the prior creditor.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quotation and citation omitted).

Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” see Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010); Melrose Gates, d at 820-21 (declining to extend Citizens State Bank); (“Granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., n.2 (Minn. 2010) (“Here we need not decide the proper standard of review because we would reach the same result concerning equitable subrogation were we to review it under an abuse of discretion standard or solely under our normal review on appeal from summary judgment.”).

ellant argues that CVRB’s subrogation right after it pays a victim is not identical to the right held by a primary victim and cites cases in other contexts in which the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized that subrogation is “not an absolute right, but rather, one that depends on equities and attending facts and circumstances in each case.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quotation omitted).

Generally, a district court abuses its di scretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law, Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., or when its decision is against the facts in the record

Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners , Inc. , , 278 (Minn. 2010).

“ A ‘good-faith purchaser’ is a purchaser ‘who gives consideration in good faith without actual, implied, or constructive notice of inconsistent outstanding rights of others.’” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (quoting Anderson, d at 384).

On appeal from summary judgment, we mu st determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

In Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., we considered the .application of principles of equitable subrogation in the mortgage-payment context.

ANALYSIS Upon review of a summary judgment, the appellate court “must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., d 274, 277 (Minn. 2010).

of Ramsey, see also Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partner, Inc., d 274, 277 n.2 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing grant of summary judgment involving equitable subrogation for abuse of discretion).

See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (reiterating “that granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court and only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal” (quotation omitted)).

Appellants, relying on Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., argue that equity is not available to respondent because it waited too long to bring its claim.

at 860 ; Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., , 277 n. 2 (Minn.2010).

See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

See Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc.

16, 2008); see also Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., ((explaining that a purchaser in good faith, or bona fide purchaser, is one “who gives consideration in good faith without actual, implied, or constructive notice of inconsistent outstanding rights of others”) (quotation omitted)).

Citizens State Bank v. Raven Trading Partners, Inc., (citing Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Cnty.