ST. THOMAS – An eviction dispute between the Virgin Islands government and Island Laundries Ltd., a case that WTJX reported has exposed decades of lease violations, uncollected fees, and faulty government oversight through the Department of Property and Procurement, has expanded, continuing to complicate redevelopment plans in the Subbase area on St. Thomas.
READ MORE: Island Laundries puts wrinkle in VIPA expansion plans, eviction case reveals faulty gov’t oversight
The lawsuit centers on government-owned parcels needed for Virgin Islands Port Authority redevelopment plans for an additional cruise ship berth and a tourist-oriented resort and commercial center in the Subbase area. Legislation passed last of these government-owned properties to VIPA for the project, including Parcel No. 164 Submarine Base, one of the parcels caught up in the government’s eviction dispute with Island Laundries.The other parcel caught up in the dispute, Parcel No. 116 Submarine Base, was not transferred.
The redevelopment is the result of an agreement between VIPA and private developers Royal Caribbean Group and Cruise Terminals International. The parties signed this agreement during a public ceremony at the Austin “Babe” Monsanto Marine Terminal in Crown Bay on December 17, 2025, the day after the government filed a motion to amend its complaint against Island Laundries.
The government’s motion follows Magistrate Judge Paula Norkaitis’ November 2025 ruling, where she transferred the case to the Civil Division after finding that Island Laundries had raised a colorable claim to possession of the property. Norkaitis said the dispute raised “too many unanswered questions” and required procedures not available to the Magistrate Division.
READ MORE: Judge transfers Island Laundries case to Civil Division, complicating VIPA’s redevelopment timeline
The amended complaint reframes what began as a simple eviction proceeding into a broader civil lawsuit that now includes claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, trespass, public nuisance, and slander of title. The government argues that the company’s continued wrongful possession of the property stands to interfere with the impending redevelopment of the Subbase area on St. Thomas.
“Island Laundries’ false claims have or will cause the government of the Virgin Islands actual pecuniary loss in the form of diminished interest of developers and future tenants and were intentionally posed to impair the government’s anticipated transfer of the premises to the Virgin Islands Port Authority and its anticipated redevelopment of the area in conjunction with private developers,” the amended complaint stated.
In the amended complaint, the government directly challenges Island Laundries’ assertion that it retains an equitable interest in the property based on improvements it says it made in 1989 under a now-expired lease. The government argues that any obligation to reimburse the company for improvements would have arisen when the lease expired in 2014 and that the claim is extinguished because the improvements have long since been fully amortized under accounting and tax rules, meaning title to all improvements has vested fully in the government.
The amended complaint also names Leah Webster, president of Island Laundries, and her mother, Lorna Webster, as defendants in the case.
Beyond seeking possession, the filing accuses Island Laundries of trespass by remaining on the property after receiving multiple notices to quit and adds a public nuisance claim, alleging that Island Laundries used toxic solvents in its dry-cleaning operations over the years and improperly handled hazardous waste at the site.
WTJX previously reported that Island Laundries was cited in 2005 by the Environmental Protection Agency for violating federal rules governing the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous waste following an inspection the agency conducted the year before.
In a statement to WTJX, Leah Webster said that on December 12, 2025 the government conducted a special inspection of the entire Island Laundries facility that lasted eight hours.
“It is important to know that Island Laundries has not been made aware of any violations, either written or otherwise, requiring abatement as a result of that special inspection,” Leah Webster said, adding that there were no issues with any other entity requiring abatement.
Island Laundries did not file any kind of response to the government’s motion until Thursday, when the company’s attorney filed a motion requesting a 10-day extension of time to respond.
Last month, Superior Court Judge Denise Francois recused herself from the case on the grounds that Island Laundries was her former client.
