A Delaware court recently ruled in favor of YSA Investments 1, LLC, allowing the company to maintain second mortgages on properties owned by Marc Kulick. The ruling, issued on June 9, 2026, comes after Kulick defaulted on multiple loans totaling nearly $1 billion. The decision affects Kulick and his associated companies, which manage a portfolio of multifamily real estate assets across several states.
The case, Marc Kulick v. YSA Investments 1, LLC (C.A. No. 2025-1319-KSJM), centers around a series of loans that YSA provided to Kulick’s companies. After defaulting on these loans, Kulick sought to have the second mortgages removed, arguing that YSA lacked the authority to impose them. However, the court found that the loan agreements granted YSA the right to record these mortgages.
The dispute began in October 2024 when YSA Investments loaned Kulick millions of dollars. As the loans progressed, Kulick requested an additional loan of $1.5 million in February 2025, which led to YSA demanding more collateral due to the increased risk. Kulick agreed to pledge his entire real estate portfolio as collateral, which included 34 properties across Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Kansas. This agreement included a joinder that committed all entities he owned to the loan obligations.
After Kulick defaulted on four loans, YSA recorded second mortgages on several properties, prompting Kulick to file a lawsuit to have these mortgages removed. Kulick argued that the loan terms were predatory and that YSA’s actions were against public policy. However, the court ruled that Delaware law does not extend usury defenses to limited liability companies like Kulick's entities, stating, “the loan documents granted YSA expansive rights to take actions against real property owned by the collateral.”
Judge McCormick presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of YSA, allowing the second mortgages to remain in place. The court found that Kulick's arguments regarding the loan agreements did not hold, particularly since he had proposed the terms himself. The ruling emphasized that YSA acted within its rights as outlined in the loan documents.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Kulick, who now faces the reality of potentially losing control over his real estate portfolio due to the substantial debt owed to YSA. The court’s decision reinforces the authority of lenders to enforce their rights under loan agreements, particularly when borrowers default on their obligations. This ruling may also serve as a cautionary tale for other borrowers regarding the importance of understanding the terms of their loan agreements and the implications of defaulting.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Kulick will appeal the court's decision. The court filing did not provide information on any potential appeal or related cases currently pending. However, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the enforcement of loan agreements and the rights of lenders in similar situations.