See NRAP 5; Volvo Cars of North America v. Ricci, 122 Nev. 746, 750–51, 137 P.3d 1161, 1164 (2006). The second question focuses on whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be applied against mechanic's lien claimants, such that a mortgage incurred after the commencement of work on a project will succeed to the senior priority position of a preexisting lien satisfied by the mortgagee, despite the existence of intervening mechanics' liens. Although this court has adopted mortgage subrogation principles, see American Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, 126 Nev. ––––, ––––, 245 P.3d 535, 538 (2010); Houston v. Bank of America, 119 Nev. 485, 488, 78 P.3d 71, 73 (2003); see also Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Mortgages § 7.6 cmt. a (1997), we have never addressed whether equitable subrogation applies in the mechanic's lien context.

"Ordinarily, when a senior deed of trust is satisfied, the junior lienholders remain in their respective order of priority and are consequently elevated up the priority line." American Sterling Bank v. Johnny Management LV, Inc., 245 P.3d 535, 539 (Nev. 2010). However, equitable doctrines allow for certain junior interests to "leap-frog" in front of those senior to them.

In the usual course, “when a senior deed of trust is satisfied, the junior lienholders remain in their respective order of priority and are consequently elevated up the priority line. Equitable subrogation interrupts this procedure and ‘permits a person who pays off an encumbrance to assume the same priority position as the holder of the previous encumbrance.'” Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 245 P.3d 535, 539 (2010) (citations omitted).

This vague conclusion is insufficent to assume a bridge between law and equity under Nevada law. Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 245 P.3d 535, 538 (Nev. 2010); Nat'l Sur. Corp., 70 F. Supp. at 192-93. 4A Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O'Connor, Jr., Bruner & O'Connor on Construction Law § 12:100 (2018) ("Although the right of subrogation sometimes has been described as an 'equitable assignment' or 'assignment by operation of law,' the equitable right of subrogation is clearly distinct from contractual assignment . . . ."); see also Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 235 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing between claims at law and equity).

Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., Inc., 128 Nev. _, _, 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012). The district court's decision whether to grant or deny an equitable remedy is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. _, _, 245 P.3d 535, 538 (2010). Here, Tarver paid the first month's rent and expenses, security deposit, and pro-rated September 2009 rent that Lin abated when his contractors caused Tarver delay. Prior to the delay, Tarver was able to access and make use of the premises for the purpose envisioned in the lease: installing the improvements needed to prepare the premises for business operations.

"[A] lender whose loan proceeds were used to pay the balance of a prior note is equitably subrogated to the former lender's priority lien position so long as an intervening lienholder is not materially prejudiced." Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 425, 245 P.3d 535, 537 (2010). "When the material facts of a case are undisputed, the effects of the application of [equitable subrogation] to those facts are a question of law that this court reviews de novo."

' This court has expressly stated that district courts have full discretion to fashion and grant equitable remedies." Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 245 P.3d 535, 538 (Nev. 2010) (internal citation omitted). See also AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Reid, 855 P.2d 533, 535 (Nev. 1993) ("Generally, subrogation is an equitable doctrine created to 'accomplish what is just and fair as between the parties.' It arises when one party has been compelled to satisfy an obligation that is ultimately determined to be the obligation of another.

' This court has expressly stated that district courts have full discretion to fashion and grant equitable remedies." Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 245 P.3d 535, 538 (Nev. 2010) (internal citation omitted). See also AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Reid, 855 P.2d 533, 535 (Nev. 1993) ("Generally, subrogation is an equitable doctrine created to 'accomplish what is just and fair as between the parties.' It arises when one party has been compelled to satisfy an obligation that is ultimately determined to be the obligation of another.

Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the remaining insurance proceeds belonged to Alan's estate under what appears to be an equitable lien theory. SeeAm. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 428, 245 P.3d 535, 538 (2010) (providing that this court will review a district court's grant of an equitable remedy for an abuse of discretion). The life insurance policy named the Family Trust as the beneficiary.

In other words, the doctrine "enables 'a later-filed lienholder to leap-frog over an intervening lien [holder].'" Am. Sterling Bank v. Johnny Mgmt. LV, Inc., 126 Nev. 423, 429, 245 P.3d 535, 539 (2010) (quoting Hicks v. Londre, 125 P.3d 452, 456 (Colo. 2005)).