Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not t o be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2010-470

JULY TERM, 2011

In re Chris C. Khamnei } APPEALED FROM: } } } Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, } Civil Division } } DOCKET NO. S0051-10 CnC

Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

In this landlord-tenant dispute, landlord appeals f rom the superior court’s decision upholding an order of the City of Burlington Housin g Board of Review awarding tenants the return of their security deposit plus interest. We affirm.

Tenants moved into the rental unit in August 2007. The monthly rent was $2400, and they paid one month’s rent as a security deposit. The Board found that tenants vacated the property on May 29, 2009, and that on June 13, 2009 , one day beyond the statutory deadline, landlord sent tenants a certified letter stating th at he was withholding most of their security deposit to cover the costs of damage to the propert y. See 9 V.S.A. § 4461(e) (“If a landlord fails to return the security deposit with a statement wit hin 14 days, the landlord forfeits the right to withhold any portion of the security deposit.”). T he Board noted that the day after the hearing was held on the matter, landlord’s representative s ubmitted a letter and two documents disputing the May 29 vacate date. The Board refused to reope n the hearing or consider the documents, however, stating that it had postponed the hearing until November 2, 2009 at landlord’s request,

and that landlord had more than sufficient time to prepare for the hearing and gather all of the necessary documents to present his case. According ly, the Board entered an order awarding tenants the remainder of their security deposit plu s interest.

Landlord appealed the Board’s order to the civil di vision of the superior court. The court affirmed the Board’s order, concluding that the Boa rd did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the hearing and allow landlord to submit add itional evidence because landlord was on notice that one of the issues at the hearing would be whether he had timely notified tenants of his decision to withhold their security deposit.

On appeal, landlord states in a two-paragraph argum ent that he received two separate notices of requests for a hearing, and thus his rep resentative was not prepared to defend against tenants’ false statements that they vacated the pre mises on May 29, 2009, rather than on June 3, 2009, as he claims. We find no merit to this argum ent. As both the Board and court indicated, landlord was plainly on notice that one of the issu es at the November 2 hearing would be whether he timely notified tenants of his decision to withhold their security deposit. Therefore, it was his responsibility to appear at the hearing arm ed with any evidence he had concerning2

tenants’ departure date and the date he notified te nants that he was withholding their security deposit. Accordingly, the superior court did not e rr in upholding the Board’s refusal to reopen the hearing and allow landlord to submit additional evidence. See In re Hunter, 167 Vt. 219, 224 (1997) (per curiam) (noting that administrative age ncy has discretion whether to reopen evidence).

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Brian L. Burgess, Associate Justice