A recent legal filing details allegations by tenants that certain property management companies have imposed unauthorized and misleading fees on renters, raising questions about consumer protection and landlord practices under Virginia law. The complaint was filed by Raymond Gonzales, Katherine Pappas, Adam Porter, and Madelyn Eder on April 14, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Westminster Management LLC, Williamsburg Spotswood LLC, and Fair Oaks Owner LLC.
According to the class action complaint, the plaintiffs represent themselves and all similarly situated individuals who have signed leases at properties managed by Westminster Management in Virginia. The document alleges that over the past decade, businesses have increasingly used so-called “junk fees”—defined as add-on charges providing little to no value—to increase profits. The plaintiffs claim these practices drive up costs for consumers unfairly and deceptively.
The central dispute focuses on three types of fees: a $95-99 per month “Media Service Amenity Fee” (also called a “Bulk Media Fee” or “Media Amenity Fee”), a $20-35 per month “Community Fee,” and a one-time-per-lease “Admin Fee” ranging from $300 to $350. Plaintiffs allege these charges are presented as necessary for receiving safe and habitable dwelling units or reimbursing actual service costs but are actually deceptive junk fees not permitted under Virginia law.
The complaint asserts that Westminster Management is familiar with litigation over such fees. It references a previous lawsuit involving similar charges at another Virginia property which resulted in settlement but did not lead to discontinuation of the contested Media Fee. Instead, plaintiffs allege that Westminster increased this fee at other properties it manages.
Plaintiffs argue that the Media Fee unlawfully charges tenants for television services when landlords are not themselves service providers—a practice they say violates Virginia Code § 55.1-1222. They further claim defendants receive undisclosed kickbacks from third-party cable providers through bulk discounts while setting tenant fees far above actual service costs. For example, at Fair Oaks—a property with 364 units—nearly $40,000 per month is collected in Media Fees while actual expenses are alleged to be much lower.
Similarly, the Community Fee is described as covering services to each tenant’s dwelling; however, plaintiffs contend it only covers common area maintenance already required by law under Virginia’s statutory warranty of habitability (Virginia Code § 55.1-1220(A)). They allege this fee shifts landlord obligations onto tenants in violation of state statutes prohibiting waiver of such warranties through lease agreements.
The Admin Fee is also challenged as serving no purpose beyond generating additional profit for defendants without corresponding services provided to tenants. Plaintiffs assert that these disputed fees are imposed through standardized lease agreements drafted by Westminster Management based on budgetary goals set with its landlord clients Spotswood and Fair Oaks.
The complaint outlines how these uniform misrepresentations affect all tenants at Westminster-managed properties across Virginia due to nearly identical lease language regarding the disputed charges. Plaintiffs claim they were misled into believing these fees were legitimate requirements tied directly to specific services or utilities when they were instead designed primarily for profit generation.
In support of their claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act (VRLTA), plaintiffs seek certification of multiple classes representing all persons who executed leases with similar terms at affected properties within two years prior to filing. They request damages—including statutory damages up to $1,000 per month per class member for willful violations—injunctive relief barring continued collection of these fees, reimbursement for amounts paid thus far during litigation pendency, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
Jurisdiction is asserted based on diversity between parties from different states (Virginia residents versus companies incorporated or headquartered in New Jersey, Delaware, or New York) with an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million due to statutory damage calculations across thousands of rental units managed by Westminster in Virginia alone.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are not specifically named within this portion of the filing; nor does it list any judges assigned beyond referencing Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-1022.
Source: 126cv01022_Gonzales_v_Westminster_Management_LLC_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
