Executive Summary

I was hired by Braden Powers and Ritzy Room under a defined work order for creative direction, photography, and brand launch execution, with an agreed bi-monthly payment schedule over a six-month term.

From the outset, the engagement involved bait-and-switch tactics, breach of contract, payment withholding based on off-scope dissatisfaction, and later attempts at financial coercion through retroactive NDA and rights-transfer demands.

The Original Agreement

Before work began, I was asked to prepare a formal work order. That work order specified:

• Defined deliverables
• A project timeline
• A bi-monthly payment schedule
• A six-month engagement totaling $50,000

This agreement was reviewed and approved. It was not speculative, provisional, or contingent on subjective preferences unrelated to scope.

Immediate Bait-and-Switch

Within the first weeks of onboarding, I was instructed to pause the agreed creative work and instead perform administrative property-listing management, rewrite short-term rental copy for properties I had never seen, and prepare to travel to Texas to manage and shoot low-budget apartment units.

I stated clearly and repeatedly that this work was not part of the agreement, that I had no training in property listings management, and that I could not responsibly execute work involving assets I did not have access to.

Payment Withholding as Leverage

When the off-scope work did not meet expectations—as I had warned it would not—I was told, in substance, that I would not be paid because they “did not like” the work.

I immediately objected and stated that withholding payment based on dissatisfaction with work outside the agreed scope constituted a breach of contract. After legal discussion, payment was made—confirming the withholding was unjustified.

From that point forward, payment became consistently difficult and adversarial.

Bad Faith Conduct and Shifting Excuses

Subsequent payment disputes were frequently based on subjective or unrelated complaints, including personal or aesthetic criticisms wholly disconnected from the contracted deliverables.

In plain terms: I was hired to do X, Y, and Z. I did X, Y, and Z. I was penalized for not doing W—work I never agreed to perform and was not qualified to perform.

Financial Coercion and Retroactive NDA Attempts

After I began documenting these issues, I was presented with an NDA and rights-transfer agreement after work had already been completed. Payment for completed work was conditioned on signing this document.

The NDA introduced language that would strip ownership of my work, eliminate recourse for unpaid compensation, and purport to override prior verbal and written agreements.

I refused to sign and stated explicitly that conditioning payment on signing new agreements constituted financial coercion. Multiple NDA drafts were later presented, each materially different, further demonstrating that the original agreement was not what the company later attempted to claim.

Completion of the Work

Despite the interference, I completed advanced CMS, HTML, UX/UI, and SEO systems, working double shifts to recover time lost due to the company’s actions. I also completed photography of the TENEBRÉ collection.

The underlying code logic is publicly demonstrable on my own site, and selected lifestyle images are displayed as proof of completion.

Payment Reality

I was paid only for the first six weeks of work. No payment was made for the subsequent months of completed creative, technical, and photographic deliverables.

No written termination notice was issued. No formal contract closeout occurred. Payment simply stopped.

Why This Is Public

This page exists to document a pattern of breach of contract, bad faith conduct, bait-and-switch tactics, and financial coercion in a professional creative engagement.

Ritzy Room continues to solicit creative talent. Transparency allows future professionals to make informed decisions.