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] fi led a n otice
of a ppeal from a ward of b oard of a rbitrators. In response,
the [trial] c ourt scheduled a b ench t rial.

. . .

[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 Agr eement ("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 [] o f 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 compensat ion 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 Opin ion, 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 whe n 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 pr oof 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 certifi ed

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

the Honorable Maureen A. Skerda . We conclude that Appellant s are not

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

3, 2021 opinion. Ther efore, 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 affir med. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/30/2021