J-S27015-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CAMERON BUSSOLETTI AND 

JONATHAN DUSHAW 

 v. 

NANCY J. SHATTUCK REAL ESTATE & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND NANCY 

SHATTUCK 

Appellants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 535 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 30, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Civil Division at No(s): 

2018-00266

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 30, 2021

Appellants, Nancy J. Shattuck Real Estate and Associates, LLC and 

Nancy Shattuck, appeal from the judgment entered on June 30, 2021, in favor 

of Cameron Bussoletti and Jonathan Dushaw (hereinafter, collectively, 

“Plaintiffs”) and against Appellants in the amount of $17,894.64. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural 

posture of this appeal:

On June 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging they 

were owed commission monies as a result of the contracts 

for sale and/or closing monies on [13] properties during the

course of time the Plaintiffs were independent contractors 

working on behalf of [Appellants]. . . . 

Plaintiffs filed a praecipe for arbitration on April 25, 2019. 

Arbitration was held on July 2, 2019 where Plaintiffs were 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27015-21

- 2 -

awarded $18,003.93 plus statutory pre-judgment interest of 

6% per annum. On July 23, 2019, [Appellants] filed a notice 

of appeal from award of board of arbitrators. In response, 

the [trial] court scheduled a bench trial. . . .

[The bench trial was held on June 19, 2020. The trial court 

heard the following evidence at trial]. 

For nearly eight (8) years, Plaintiffs worked as independent 

contractors for [Appellants] as real estate agents. Plaintiffs 

were the top selling agents each year they worked for 

[Appellants]. Plaintiffs executed a Nancy Shattuck Real 

Estate & Associates Independent Contractor's Agreement 

("Agreement") annually, with their final agreement being 

signed on January 3, 2017. Pursuant to the Agreement, 

Plaintiffs gave [Appellants] their seven [] day notice of 

termination of the Agreement on February 13, 2017. It is 

alleged that [Appellants] refused to accept Plaintiffs' notice 

of termination. As of the date of Plaintiffs' termination notice, 

Plaintiffs had secured listing agreements on all [13] of the 

properties and six [] of the properties were also under sales

contracts. Plaintiffs have only received partial payments in 

the amount of $4,158.14 on six [] of these properties and 

have received no payments on the remaining seven []

properties.

Plaintiffs aver that [Appellants] have been unjustly enriched 

in the amount of $17,894.64 which is still due and owing to 

the Plaintiffs. [Appellants] aver that Plaintiffs have been

compensated for commissions earned prior to termination of 

Agreement, but they do not merit any compensation for 

commissions earned post-termination.

. . .

On July 27, 2020, [the trial] court issued [its judgment,] 

finding in favor of the Plaintiffs and awarding the amount of 

$17,894.64 plus statutory pre-judgment interest of 6% per 

annum.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/3/21, at 1-4 (some capitalization omitted).
J-S27015-21

- 3 -

Following the denial of Appellants’ post-trial motion, Appellants filed a 

timely notice of appeal. Appellants raise seven claims on appeal:

[1.] Did the trial court err in relying upon the Plaintiffs’ expert 

witness and not relying upon [Appellants’] expert witness 

regarding custom in the real estate industry?

[2.] Did the trial court err in determining that it was the 

custom for real estate agents to be entitled to their entire 

commission for real estate sales even where they were no 

longer agents for a real estate broker at the time of closing 

and did not perform all of the responsibilities and duties 

required of real estate agents prior to the closing of a real 

estate sale?

[3.] Did the trial court err in awarding Plaintiffs [100%] of 

the demanded commission amount when Plaintiffs had 

terminated their employment prior to the applicable listings 

reaching sales agreements?

[4.] Was it inequitable for the trial court to award the 

Plaintiffs [100%] of their demanded commissions where 

Plaintiffs did not complete [100%] of the work required to 

finalize the sale?

[5.] Did the trial court err in awarding Plaintiffs the entire 

commission related to the property located at 204 Eldred Hill 

Road when the uncontradicted testimony from [Appellants] 

was that this property was not ultimately sold by her, or her 

agents, and she had received no funds at the time of closing?

[6.] Did the trial court err in finding that the Plaintiffs met 

their burden of proof to show that the [Appellants] had been 

unjustly enriched?

[7.] Did the trial court err in finding the Plaintiffs were entitled 

to the entire commissions for all of the properties only by 

securing listing agreements on [Appellants’] behalf where 

there remained additional work to be completed prior to 

finalized closing on the real estate that was performed by 

other real estate agents?
J-S27015-21

- 4 -

Appellants’ Brief at 4-5.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified 

record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, 

the Honorable Maureen A. Skerda. We conclude that Appellants are not 

entitled to relief in this case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Skerda’s June 

3, 2021 opinion. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Skerda’s thorough 

opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other 

court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge 

Skerda’s June 3, 2021 opinion.

Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/30/2021