ST. CROIX — A retired Virgin Islands Police Department sergeant and Vietnam War veteran has filed a lawsuit challenging the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority’s denial of his application to participate in the Virgin Islands Slice Moderate Homeownership Program, alleging the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unlawful.
Calvin Todman, of St. Thomas, is suing Wayne Biggs Jr. in his official capacity as EDA chief executive officer for allegedly treating him differently from other similarly situated VI Slice program applicants without a rational basis by denying his application because he inherited real property in the British Virgin Islands.
Biggs, however, disputes the claims, stating that Todman never submitted an application.
“We have no record of a formal application from Mr. Todman,” Biggs said. “We do have where he inquired in reference to potentially, on two occasions, getting a VI Slice loan, and what the requirements were, and those were repeated to him.”
Todman contends that Biggs denied his application without reasoned explanation and without uniform application of eligibility criteria, according to the complaint submitted on January 13 by attorney Robert Leycock in Superior Court, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. The filing states that Biggs denied Todman’s application without articulated standards or substantial evidence even though he met all the qualifications for the program, which include being a first-time homebuyer.
The complaint states that Todman submitted a loan application in January 2025 to Merchant’s Commercial Bank for the purchase of a personal residence on St. Thomas using the VI Slice program. Todman, who has never purchased a home, stated that he is a first-time homebuyer within the meaning of the program’s definition.
Nevertheless, the complaint indicates the bank informed Todman in February 2025 that Biggs had denied his application to participate in the program because he inherited real property in Tortola, British Virgin Islands, which is not his principal residence and which he did not purchase.
The lawsuit includes an email to Todman from a loan officer with Merchants Commercial Bank as an exhibit. The email, sent on February 7, 2025 by Gabrielle Ruggiero, states that: “The VIEDA advised that since Mr. Todman inherited land in Tortola, he would not qualify for the VI Slice program. The only way he would be eligible to apply would be if he liquidated the property and injected those funds into the construction of the project prior to the determination of the program.”
Through his attorney, Todman requested an explanation of the denial and reconsideration from the EDA in March 2025. The complaint states that the agency never responded, resulting in an effective final denial of the loan application and damages.
While Biggs said Todman never submitted a formal application to be considered for the VI Slice program, he emphasized that the program is designed to assist residents in achieving homeownership opposed to increasing an applicant’s existing asset base.
“The program is there to assist and not there to enrich,” he said. “It’s consistent with how we’ve applied the program from the beginning, that if somebody owns land, they either need to build on that particular land, or they need to divest and use the monies from that land if they sold it for the project because we’re trying to help as much people as possible. So, if you have assets, you’re supposed to use those assets that you have to augment and assist in reference to the cost of your first home.”
Biggs rejected any suggestion that applicants are treated differently based on where property they might own is located, regardless of whether it is located outside of the territory or United States.
“It is an asset, and you can use that asset to assist in reference to the cost of your home,” he said. “So, that’s how we’ve interpreted and that’s how we’ve looked at everything.”
The lawsuit raises two primary claims.
Todman alleges the denial violated his right to equal protection under the Revised Organic Act, stating that there was no rational basis for treating him differently from other applicants. He claims the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious under Virgin Islands administrative law, asserting that the EDA failed to articulate clear standards or provide substantial evidence supporting its decision.
Todman is asking the court to declare the denial unlawful, order the EDA to reconsider his application using uniform and constitutionally permissible standards, and enjoin the agency from administering the VI Slice program in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. He is also seeking costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as further relief as the court deems just and proper.
