Opinion ID: 1708276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Advice and Reasonable Reliance

Text: McGladrey argues that Lien failed to prove that McGladrey advised Lien to redeem the stock, or that, if he were so advised, his reliance upon that advice was reasonable. Whether tax advice was given to Lien and whether he reasonably relied upon that advice are questions of fact, to be determined by the trier of fact, the jury. See Rockler, 273 N.W.2d at 650. See generally Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., 438 N.W.2d 400, 402-03 (Minn.Ct.App. 1989) (citation omitted) (whether a client negligently dealt with its accountant and whether the negligence contributed to the accountant's failure to perform its contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards are fact questions for the jury's determination), rev'd on other grounds, 454 N.W.2d 905 (1990). Our responsibility on appeal is to determine whether these factual findings are clearly erroneous. Rockler, 273 N.W.2d at 650. These factual findings can be held clearly erroneous only if upon a review of the entire evidence we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. (citations omitted). As noted above, Lien testified that he was advised by McGladrey that he could go ahead with the redemption of the stock and that he relied upon this advice when he redeemed the stock. Given this testimony, the letter of understanding, the notation by McGladrey that Lien Construction should consider redeeming the stock for the outstanding loan, and that McGladrey prepared the tax return of Lien Construction and the personal income tax return of the Liens, McGladrey has failed to show that the jury's finding that Lien reasonably relied upon McGladrey's advice was clearly erroneous.