Because this matter must be returned to the small claims court for a new trial, and
because Mr. Peterson did not appear for the oral argument in connection with the small claims
appeal, the Court does not squarely address Mr. Chagnon’s other claims of error. In particular,
Mr. Chagnon disputes that Mr. Peterson gave adequate notice of termination of tenancy when
he purported to provide notice of his intention to vacate on Jan. 1, 2014 by email sent less than
a week prior to that date. According to Mr. Chagnon, Mr. Peterson had given a previous notice
in November 2013 that he would relinquish possession at the end of January 2014. Both
because of the short period associated with Mr. Peterson’s modified notice, and because Mr.
Peterson acknowledges that he continued to occupy the premises for a portion of January, Mr.
Chagnon claims entitlement to rent for the entire month. Furthermore, Mr. Chagnon maintains
that Mr. Peterson changed the locks on the apartment at an earlier time, and that he never
provided Mr. Chagnon with a key to the new lock, either before or after purporting to
terminate the tenancy and vacate. He disputes that he was required to account for any security
deposit until after he was able to gain access to the leased premises, which did not occur until
Mr. Peterson’s domestic partner informed him of the location of a key for the changed locks.