The Designery vs. The Entrepreneur Who Dared to Build First
Franchising promises freedom, systems, and support; but for some entrepreneurs, it becomes a maze of fine print, non-competes, and unexpected legal firestorms. In a recently filed lawsuit, A1 Kitchen & Bath Franchising, LLC, the franchisor behind The Designery brand, has sued a former franchisee over what it calls violations of the franchise agreement’s non-compete clause. But beneath the surface is a deeper and more troubling question: What happens when the franchisor claims rights over a business that already existed before the franchise was signed?
📄 The Franchise Model
The Designery is a showroom-based kitchen, bath, and closet design concept offered by A1 Kitchen & Bath Franchising, LLC, part of a growing cluster of brands under the Homefront Brands umbrella. According to its 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), The Designery is marketed as a design-and-install business targeting residential and commercial renovations. The franchisor requires minimum royalty payments, enforces strict territory restrictions, and reserves the right to modify the system at its sole discretion.
The FDD discloses a number of risks, including:
The franchisor's short operating history
Questionable financial condition
Mandatory royalty and advertising payments regardless of sales
Spousal liability
Strict non-compete and non-solicitation clauses during and after the franchise term
⚖️ The Lawsuit
In April 2025, A1 filed suit in federal court against a former franchisee, asserting breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. According to the complaint, the franchisor alleges that the franchisee failed to pay required fees, operated a competing business during the term, and continued to use The Designery’s branding post-termination.
Termination was triggered by a combination of alleged missed payments, failure to maintain an active ACH account, and most notably, operating a general contracting business that A1 claims competed with the franchised business.
🧩 The Missing Piece: A Pre-Existing Business
Court filings and public records indicate that the franchisee operated a licensed general contracting business years before signing with The Designery. That business, formed and operating well before the October 2023 franchise agreement, offered broad construction services under a different brand and license.
According to public documents, the contracting business:
Subcontracted all kitchen and bath installations to third-party professionals
Did not operate a consumer-facing showroom
Used The Designery as a product supplier prior to signing the franchise agreement
Despite this history, the franchise agreement included no written exception for the pre-existing business.
🔒 The Non-Compete Clause: Absolute and Unforgiving
Section 17 of the franchise agreement prohibits the franchisee (and their affiliated entities) from operating or holding an interest in any business offering similar products or services within the protected territory and a 10-mile radius of any Designery location. This restriction applies during the term and for two years after termination.
Notably, the agreement makes no exception for existing businesses, regardless of how long they’ve operated or how dissimilar they are in practice. This omission leaves franchisees vulnerable to overbroad interpretations that can force them to choose between signing a franchise agreement or shuttering an unrelated company.
💰 The Financial Pressure Behind the Litigation
The 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document reveals serious concerns about A1 Kitchen & Bath Franchising’s financial footing. In fact, the FDD explicitly states that the franchisor’s financial condition “calls into question [its] ability to provide services and support.” The company operates no company-owned units and relies on a patchwork of affiliated entities, most under the Homefront Brands umbrella, for everything from cabinet fulfillment to vendor contracting.
But perhaps the most telling sign of instability comes from a public listing for the sale of the original Designery business in Rossville, Georgia, allegedly operated by A1 Kitchen & Bath Design, LLC. The business-for-sale advertisement touts multi-state operations, solid revenue, and most notably, a centralized distribution infrastructure as key assets of the business.
What the listing doesn’t say is more important: according to sources familiar with the system, this Rossville location has purportedly served as the primary fulfillment and distribution center for franchisees, supplying cabinets and materials across multiple territories. It is allegedly the backbone of the supply chain infrastructure The Designery promoted to franchisees.
If the franchisor is actively selling off that distribution hub, the implications are serious:
Franchisees may soon be left without the centralized support the system was built upon.
The franchisor may be liquidating core operational assets to stay afloat or exit quietly.
This asset sale could undercut the entire promise of consistency, supply chain leverage, and franchise support.
In short, the very business touted to franchisees as the engine behind operational efficiency is now being marketed to private buyers, seemingly outside the franchise system.
Whether the motive is cash flow, litigation risk, investor pressure, or quiet consolidation, the sale underscores what the lawsuit and FDD already suggest: this is a franchisor under financial and structural stress, increasingly reliant on franchise fees and aggressive enforcement, rather than scalable operations or sustainable brand growth.
🛠️ A Franchisee’s Dilemma
If a franchisee builds a business independently, uses a franchisor’s products, and later becomes a franchisee, should that erase their past? Should a franchisor be able to retroactively impose restrictions on legally registered businesses that operated for years beforehand?
This is more than a legal question. It's a warning for prospective franchisees:
“Don’t assume the franchisor’s verbal, or even informally written, reassurances will protect your other business interests. If it’s not in the contract, it doesn’t exist.”
🧭 The Bottom Line
This lawsuit reminds us why franchise due diligence is not just about reading the FDD, it's about reading between the lines:
Non-compete clauses are often written broadly and enforced aggressively, even against pre-existing businesses.
Verbal permissions from franchisor leadership are usually meaningless unless written into the franchise agreement.
Franchisors with weak financials may shift risk and liability to franchisees, then enforce the agreement punitively.
Franchise asset sales, especially involving core infrastructure, may signal deeper instability than what's disclosed.
Franchisees don’t just need legal advice; they need leverage, documentation, and the courage to walk away when the fine print doesn’t match the handshake.
This post is for informational and educational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction for advice regarding any specific legal matter or franchise agreement. All information presented in this article is based on publicly available documents, including Franchise Disclosure Documents (FDDs), court filings, and statements made by involved parties within court filings. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and fairness, Franchise Reality Check™ makes no warranties or representations regarding the completeness, timeliness, or accuracy of the information contained herein. Certain names, identifying details, and direct quotes have been omitted or anonymized to protect the privacy of individuals and businesses. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any franchisor, franchisee, or legal entity referenced. The inclusion of any franchisor or franchise system in this article does not imply fraud, wrongdoing, or liability unless such findings have been made by a court of law or regulatory body. This post is intended to promote informed decision-making and highlight areas of potential risk and concern for prospective franchisees and stakeholders in the franchising industry.
