In Re Soon Kwon, 19 A.3d 139

In 2006 landlord and six university tenants signed a one-year lease for a Burlington unit, with a security deposit of $2,970.
In 2007 a second one-year lease was executed; it recited a $3,180 security deposit, but there is no evidence of additional security.
In June 2008, after leases ended and tenants moved out, landlord sent a security-deposit statement claiming $852.11 remaining, with deductions for prior damages; notices were mailed to tenants’ emergency contacts, five by regular mail and one by certified mail.
Three tenants, purporting to speak for all, filed a hearing request on July 3, 2008 to dispute the security deposit.
The Board held a hearing on August 18, 2008 and found landlord forfeited the right to withhold the deposit for failing to use certified mail to the last-known addresses; landlord appealed, and the superior court affirmed on-the-record, not de novo, review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly reviewed the Board’s decision on the record.	Kwon seeks de novo review of factual findings.	Board decisions are reviewed on the record with deferential scrutiny.	On-the-record review proper; no de novo.
Whether landlord complied with notice requirements for the security-deposit statement.	Tenants had actual notice; notice method should not bar recovery.	Statutory and municipal notice methods must be followed; lack of proper notice forfeits the deposit.	Landlord failed to meet statutory/municipal notice; forfeiture applies.
Whether failure to provide the required notice of right to appeal affected the deposit forfeiture.	Absence of right-to-appeal notice should not defeat deposits.	Ordinance requires notice of right to appeal; failure forfeits withholding rights.	Failure to provide notice of appeal mandated forfeiture of withheld deposit.
Whether the Board could hear the matter before a single hearing officer.	Single hearing officer not authorized for this proceeding.	Ordinance authorizes designated hearing officers for expediency; no majority issue here.	Authorized under Burlington Ordinance; proper procedure.
Whether the clerk’s questions during the hearing invalidated the proceedings.	Clerk’s questions usurped the Board’s role.	Hearing officer conducted the hearing; clerk’s questions were ancillary.	No error; clerk’s questions did not undermine process.

Rhoades Salvage/ABC Metals v. Town of Milton Selectboard, 2010 VT 82 (Vt. 2010) (standard of review for agency findings on appeal)
Conservation Law Found. v. Burke, 162 Vt. 115 (1993) (on-the-record review and deferential interpretation of agency regulations)
Dep't of Taxes v. Tri-State Indus. Laundries, Inc., 138 Vt. 292 (1980) (on-the-record review; deferential standard; statutory interpretation)
Town of Victory v. State, 2004 VT 110 (Vt. 2004) (deference in reviewing agency decisions; statutory construction guidance)
In re Williston Inn Grp., 2008 VT 47 (Vt. 2008) (agency decision review; on-the-record approach)
Borden v. Hofmann, 2009 VT 30 (Vt. 2009) (de novo review for legal conclusions; deferential for factual findings)
Hinsdale v. Village of Essex Junction, 153 Vt. 618 (1990) (actual notice vs. statutory notice procedures in some contexts)
Burke (various), see above for full citation in Burke line (1993-2000s) (agency notice and deferential review principles)
TD Banknorth, N.A. v. Dep't of Taxes, 2008 VT 120 (Vt. 2008) (statutory harmonious reading of related provisions)