Cited by

(quoting Melrose Gates, ).

at 861; see Melrose Gates, -22 (Minn. 2016) (applying de novo review to district court’s dismissal of a subrogation claim when the dismissal was not based on the weight of the equities or on findings of disputed facts).

In contrast, Kaminski argues that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies because, under Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua, “a deferential standard of review might be applicable where, after balancing the equities, the district court determines not to award equitable relief.” (quotation omitted).

As a general matter, “subrogation” refers to the “substitution of one party for another whose debt the party pays, which entitles the paying party to step into the shoes, or be substituted to all the rights, priorities, remedies, liens, and securities of, the other party.” Melrose Gates

trict court also determined that the retaining wall “constitutes a danger to the public who seek to exercise their ingress and egress rights on Lake Street” and ordered the Tysdals to “remove the portion of the block retaining wall extending onto Lake Street.” Appellate courts review “a district court ’s decision to award equitable relief for abuse of discretion.” Melrose Gates, (quotation omitted).

Melrose Gates, see also Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., (stating that a district court’s judgment after a bench-trial verdict is reviewed for errors in its conclusions of law).

See, e.g., Melrose Gates, (“We give deference to a district court’s equitable determinations” because “the district court is in the best position to analyze the facts and balance the relevant factors.”).

made as a matter of law on summary judgment”); Melrose Gates, (concluding that deferential standard of review was not justified when district court “neither weighed equities, nor made its decision based on factual findings that it was uniquely well-suited to make,” but rather decided equitable relief was not available as a matter of law).

Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua , d 814, 819 (Minn. 2016).

But the doctrine of subrogation applies when there is a “substitution of one party for another whose debt the party pays, which entitles the paying party to step into the shoes, or be substituted to all the rights, priorities, remedies, liens, and securities of, the other party.” Melrose Gates

See Melrose Gates, –22 (Minn. 2016).

We “review[] a district court’s decision to award equitable relief for [an] abuse of discretion.” Melrose Gates, (quotation omitted).

But, according to the supreme court, “a more deferential abuse of discretion standard of review might be applicable where the district court, after balancing the equities, determines not to award equitable relief.” Id.; cf. Melrose Gates, (concluding that a deferential standard of review was not 6 required when the facts were undisputed and the district court decided, without weighing the equities, that as a matter of law equitable relief was not available).

Equitable decisions of the district court warrant deference because it “is in the best position to analyze the facts and balance the relevant factors.” Melrose Gates

State v. Pendleton , see also Melrose Gates, -22 (Minn. 2016) ( explaining that a district court ’s determination whether the requirements of an equitable doctrine are met is a legal issue that appellate courts review de novo).

“[W]hen the material facts are not in dispute, an appellate court will review the di strict court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Melrose Gates

Melrose Gates, -22 (Minn. 2016); L & H Transp., Inc. v. Drew Agency, Inc.

“[W]hen the material facts are not in dispute, an appellate court will review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Melrose Gates, d 814, 819 (Minn. 2016).

Typically, “when the material fa cts are not in dispute, an appellate court will review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua

Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua

The ge neral rule is especially appropriate with respect to issues of equity, for which the district court “is in the best position to analyze the facts and balance the relevant factors.” Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua

Melrose Gates, d 814, 819 (Minn. 2016).

Sys., Inc., see also Melrose Gates, (“Generally, litigants have no right to a jury trial on the merits of equitable claims, and traditionally the judge serves as the trier of fact for such claims.”).

See Melrose Gates, n.2 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that we apply a de novo standard of review when there are “cross- motions for summary judgment, based on undisputed facts, [and] equitable relief [is] sought.”).

“In a typical case, when the material facts are not in dispute, an appellate court will review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Melrose Gates

See Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua , , 819 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing summary judgment de novo when material facts are undisputed).

Melrose Gates, (Minn. 1 “In a Miller-Shugart settlement, the insured, having been denied any coverage for a claim, agrees claimant may enter judgment against him for a sum collectible only from the insurance policy.

Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua , , 819 (Minn. 2016).

See Melrose Gates, d 814, 819 (Minn. 2016) (stating th e general rule is that equitable relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Melrose Gates, LLC v. Chor Moua , , 819 (Minn. 2016).

Melrose Gates, LLC v. Moua , , 819 (Minn. 2016).