(dissenting).
The court’s decision rests on the notion that “equity aids the vigilant, and not the negligent,” and therefore Citizens’ failure to act for 38 days in resubmitting the mortgage registration tax does not warrant equitable subrogation. However, in our over-century-long application of equitable subrogation we have faced far more egregious conduct and have never found a mistake so unjustifiable or so inexcusable that equitable subrogation should not apply. I would hold that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion when it applied equitable subrogation to Citizens’ mortgage.
Most disturbing in this case is the court’s abandonment of our standard of review. The purpose of appellate review is to determine whether a district court has made an error and not to try the case de novo. Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 68 n. 2 (Minn.1979). The standard of review circumscribes the role of the reviewing appellate court and ensures uniformity and consistency in the law by precluding the retrial of a case on appeal. In re the Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 374 (Minn.1990). On appeal from summary judgment, we are to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Christensen v. Milbank Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn.2003). While we apply a de novo review to legal questions, the decision of whether to grant equitable relief rests within “the sound discretion” of the district court and will not be reversed on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion. Nadeau v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Minn.1979) (“Granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.”). An abuse of discretion may occur when the district court’s findings are unsupported by the evidence or the applicable law. Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705, 710 (Minn.1985). An appellate court does not, however, reweigh the evidence or find its own facts. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn.1988). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we are not free to substitute our own judgment for that of the district court. Arundel v. Arundel, 281 N.W.2d 663, 667 (Minn.1979).
Subrogation is generally defined as the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right. See Rowe v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 472 N.W.2d 640, 644 (Minn.1991). The subrogee, the person discharging the debt, stands in the shoes of the subrogor, the original creditor, and acquires all of the subrogee’s rights, in particular, the priority level of the creditor’s debt. See id.; Errett v. Wheeler, 109 Minn. 157 163, 123 N.W. 414, 416 (1909). “Subrogation rests on the maxim that no one should be enriched by another’s loss.” Medica, Inc. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 566 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Minn.1997) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Subrogation is not a legal remedy, but is an equitable remedy where the court weighs and balances the equities of the two parties and determines who should have the higher priority. N. Trust Co. v. Consol. Elevator *289Co., 142 Minn. 132, 138, 171 N.W. 265, 268 (1919) (“The doctrine of subrogation is of purely equitable origin and nature. Whether a case for its application arises in favor of a surety as against third persons depends upon the balance of equities between them and the surety.”). We have consistently liberally applied the doctrine of equitable subrogation for over 100 years, even in the face of serious, unexplained mistakes by plaintiffs and their agents. See, e.g., Hirleman v. Nickels, 193 Minn. 51, 57-58, 258 N.W. 13, 16 (1934) (applying equitable subrogation when a party renewed their mortgage and negligently failed to check for intervening mortgages); Gerdine v. Menage, 41 Minn. 417, 419-21, 43 N.W. 91, 92 (1889) (applying equitable subrogation when the defendant satisfied a first mortgage and foreclosed a second mortgage on “the mistaken notion that [its] foreclosure proceedings were valid and effectual”). Further, we have been vigilant in avoiding unwarranted windfalls to junior lienholders because of the mistakes committed by those paying off senior debts, and we have steadfastly refused to elevate the priority of junior lienholders when they have not paid for the elevation in status. Hirleman, 193 Minn. at 58, 258 N.W. at 16 (noting that the party holding the second mortgage “bargained for and secured a second mortgage inferior to plaintiffs first mortgage,” and “[i]t would be a sad reflection upon a court of equity if [the party holding the second mortgage] were to prevail”).
Although we have stated the test for equitable subrogation using different terms, the concept behind equitable subro-gation has always been that when a party pays the debt of another in an attempt to receive the creditor’s priority level that payment shall operate as an assignment of the lien if the assignment can be accomplished without harming innocent parties. See Elliott v. Tainter, 88 Minn. 377, 378, 93 N.W. 124, 124 (1903) (stating that “the true principle” of equitable subrogation is that “where money is so paid, it shall operate in the nature of an assignment of the canceled lien, to continue it in force to subserve the ends of justice”). While our early case law was concerned with whether the claimant’s mistake was justifiable or excusable, and we have routinely recited that language, we have never found the nature of the mistake to be dispositive. Instead, our prime concern in equitable subrogation cases is whether the “restoration of the discharged lien may be made without putting the holder of the second incumbrance in any worse position than if the prior lien had not been discharged” and protecting the expectations of those who pay off another’s debt. London & Nw. Am. Mortgage Co. v. Tracy, 58 Minn. 201, 204, 59 N.W. 1001, 1002 (1894).
The district court determined that Raven does not have a superior equitable claim that should prevent the application of equitable subrogation. The district court noted that Raven bargained for and received a mortgage that was subordinate to $164,000 in existing encumbrances, Raven’s security interest encumbers other property than the property that is the basis of this litigation, and Raven would receive a windfall by being elevated to first priority. Citizens, though admittedly inadvertent, is seeking the application of a doctrine created to aid those who inadvertently fail to secure their priority. While Citizens failed to utilize due care, it cannot be said that Citizens’ mistake is more serious than the mistakes committed by plaintiffs in cases in which we have applied equitable subrogation. In Sucker v. Cranmer, we applied equitable subrogation in favor of a plaintiff who, without any justification or excuse, negligently failed to file a statutorily required affidavit that resulted in the plaintiffs lien never becoming effee-*290tive. 127 Minn. 124, 125, 128, 149 N.W. 16, 17-18 (1914). Here, Citizens, in recording its mortgage, attempted to pay the required mortgage registration tax but sent an incorrect amount. Upon being notified that the mortgage had not been recorded because of the failure to submit the correct mortgage registration tax amount, Citizens, within 38 days, again recorded the mortgage submitting the correct tax. If equitable subrogation was appropriate in Sucker, a case in which the claimant of the doctrine never submitted the statutorily required affidavit, it is appropriate here, a case in which Citizens submitted the statutorily required registration tax within 38 days of being notified that its mortgage had not been recorded. However, in direct conflict with Sucker, the court, without explanation or reason, adopts a restrictive “justifiable or excusable mistake of fact” analysis. As the Restatement1 and other courts2 have begun to follow in the path our court blazed approximately a century ago, we take a step back.
Here, the district court identified the equitable interests, weighed them, and determined that equity favored Citizens. However, the court has chosen to apply its own judgment and not defer to the district court’s equitable findings. While the court may be inclined to weigh the equities differently, the responsibility of making equitable determinations lies with the district court. See Arundel, 281 N.W.2d at 667 (“While we are less than convinced that a higher award would not be appropriate ..., we are not free to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court absent a clear abuse of its discretion.”). Our limited role is to determine if the district court clearly abused its discretion by reaching a decision that is unsupported by the evidence in the record. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d at 710 (“The trial court’s findings must be sustained unless clearly erroneous.”). When there is competent evidence in the record supporting the district court’s determination, as there is here, the district court has not abused its discretion. By substituting our judgment for that of the district court, we have abandoned our standard of review and usurped responsibilities properly left in the able hands of the district court. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice (dissenting).I join in the dissent of Justice Page.
. The Restatement says, "One who fully performs an obligation of another, secured by a mortgage, becomes by subrogation the owner of the obligation and the mortgage to the extent necessary to prevent unjust enrichment.'' Restatement (Third) of Property; Mortgages § 7.6 (1997).
. The Washington Supreme Court has found that public policy concerns weigh in favor of a liberal approach to equitable subrogation. Bank of Am., N.A. v. Prestance Corp., 160 Wash.2d 560, 160 P.3d 17, 28 (2007). Equitable subrogation helps stem the threat of foreclosure by serving as an incentive for one to advance sums to those threatened by foreclosure, and can save billions of dollars by reducing title insurance premiums that are passed on to homebuyers. Id. at 580-81, 160 P.3d 17; see also Grant S. Nelson & Dale A. Whitman, Adopting Restatement Mortgage Subrogation Principles: Saving Billions of Dollars for Refinancing Homeowners, 2006 BYU L. Rev. 305, 359 (2006).