The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a judgment against SA Living Fund LLC and its owners, Craig Grossman and Aaron Cohen. The court ruled on November 9, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision to deny the SA Living Parties' petition to open or strike a confessed judgment related to a loan default. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of loan agreements and the responsibilities of borrowers under such contracts.

The case stemmed from a loan agreement in which SA Living borrowed $3,850,000 from First Citizens Community Bank (FCCB) in July 2022. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property located at 827 Spring Garden Street in Philadelphia. The loan agreement included provisions that allowed for a confessed judgment, meaning that the bank could seek a judgment against the borrowers without a trial if they defaulted on the loan. In this instance, Grossman and Cohen individually guaranteed the loan, which further solidified their financial responsibility.

In March 2024, the SA Living Parties extended the maturity date of the loan by one month, paying an extension fee of $9,625 and a legal fee of $750. Later, in November 2024, they sought a second modification to the loan, agreeing to pay $103,433.33 to bring the loan current. However, by January 2025, FCCB notified the SA Living Parties that they had failed to make the required payments, leading to the bank filing a complaint for a confessed judgment in March 2025.

The SA Living Parties contested the judgment, claiming that the bank's complaint was deficient because it did not specify the defaults in detail. They argued that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the necessity of detailing an event of default. They also claimed they had valid defenses and disputed the amounts claimed by the bank.

In its ruling, the Superior Court, led by Judge McLaughlin, found that the trial court had sufficient grounds to deny the SA Living Parties' petition. The court noted that the complaint did indeed outline the terms of the loan and the defaults that had occurred. The court stated, "The complaint outlines terms to which [the SA Living Parties] had agreed to obtain the second modification and alleges that [the SA Living Parties] did not make those payments and was thereby in default." The court concluded that the SA Living Parties had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims.

The court also addressed the SA Living Parties' assertion that there were significant errors in the calculations of the amounts owed. While FCCB acknowledged that there were some clerical errors, the court ruled that these did not constitute a meritorious defense that would warrant opening the judgment. The court stated, "A calculation error as to the amount of interest invalidates the entirety of the proceeding. Not only was the error corrected, but also the judgment would have rectified it after the damages hearing."

Furthermore, the SA Living Parties argued that FCCB had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, the court found that this claim was not adequately raised in their petition and thus was waived. The court emphasized that merely insisting on compliance with the terms of the loan does not constitute bad faith.

This ruling has implications for future loan agreements and the enforcement of such contracts in Pennsylvania. It reinforces the notion that borrowers must adhere to the terms of their agreements and that banks can enforce their rights under those agreements without facing challenges based on vague claims of bad faith or procedural deficiencies.

Looking ahead, the SA Living Parties may have limited options for appeal, as the court's ruling appears to be final on the issues presented. However, they could potentially seek further legal remedies or pursue related claims in separate actions if they believe there are additional grounds for contesting the judgment.