ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-09135-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-02-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AZ Remodeling Solutions LLC,

COMPLAINANT

BALLERO CONSTRUCTION LLC

License No. ROC 352724,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-09135-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 30, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Complainant: Jorge and Keri Leiva

Respondent: Max Ballesteros

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Ballero Construction, LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 352724 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on June 11, 2024.

On or about February 26, 2025, Jorge Leiva (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent to, among other things, build a house.

On or about September 8, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming Respondent abandoned the work.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Chris Allison, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on September 17, 2025, scheduling the inspection for October 3, 2025.

Investigator Allison conducted the jobsite inspection on or about October 3, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Allison issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on October 7, 2025, that provided as follows:

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Complaint Item: 3 - Abandoned work on drywall, garage concrete slab, ac unit concrete pad and deck stairs concrete pad

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, the majority of Respondent's contracted work has been completed/corrected by the Complainant. However, there is still some outstanding work let. Respondent shall complete the remaining contracted work that has not been taken over by the Complainant in an appropriate manner and in compliance with the agreed too scope. Any additional cost incurred is a financial matter that is outside the Registrar's jurisdiction, and should be pursued in the appropriate venue.

Complaint Item: 5 - Work has been abandoned and left with me trying to get work completed to keep project moving

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection, The majority of Respondent's contracted work has been completed/corrected by the Complainant. However, there is still some outstanding work let. Respondent shall complete the remaining contracted work that has not been taken over by the Complainant in an appropriate manner and in compliance with the agreed too scope. Any additional cost incurred is a financial matter that is outside the Registrar's jurisdiction, and should be pursued in the appropriate venue.

Complaint Item: 7 - He does not want to complete the remaining scope of work that has not been completed

The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Allison of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 22, 2025.

On or about October 23, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator Allison that no corrective work had been performed on the project.

On November 4, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(1), 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on November 4, 2025. Respondent’s Answer denied abandoning the project and asserted that although Respondent ordered the siding Complainant requested, Complainant was not satisfied and wanted a more expensive option. Respondent advised Complainant new siding could be ordered, but the contract price would increase. Complainant did not consent to an increase; therefore, the parties agreed that Complainant would complete the project himself using the remaining $22,000 unpaid balance on the contract. In exchange, Respondent paid Complainant $4,500 for exterior painting.

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On November 24, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for December 30, 2025.

On December 1, 2025, Investigator Allison issued a Notice to both parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings advising that he was unavailable to appear on December 30, 2025, and if either party felt it would hinder the presentation of their case, they should request a continuance.

The hearing was held via Google Meet on December 30, 2025.

The parties elected to proceed without the benefit of Investigator Allison’s testimony.

Complainant testified that Respondent ordered the wrong siding and Complainant informed Respondent of the error prior to any installation efforts. However, the day after Complainant informed Respondent that the siding was incorrect, Respondent proceeded to begin installation, after which the product could not be returned. At this point, Respondent informed Complainant that the contract price would need to be increased to purchase new siding. Complainant did not consent to an increase in contract price. However, Complainant advised Respondent that if Respondent would purchase the siding and have it delivered to the project site, Complainant would complete the installation himself. Respondent did not agree to Complainant’s offer and no further work was completed. Complainant subsequently filed a complaint with the Registrar. After the jobsite inspection Respondent did not contact Complainant nor attempt any corrective work. On October 23, 2025, Complainant advised Investigator Allison that no corrective work had been completed.

Respondent testified that prior to the misunderstanding regarding the siding, Respondent’s work had passed all inspections. After the siding incident, Respondent advised Complainant that the budget would be short and an increase in contract price was necessary; however, Complainant rejected all provided options. Respondent stated he stopped working on the project because the parties had not reached a new agreement. Respondent testified that the parties discussed that Respondent would pay $4,000 for exterior painting, and Complainant would retain the remaining $22,000 balance owed on the contract to complete the project himself. Respondent did not dispute that no work was completed during the directive period.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 30, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 352724 was Suspended; and there was one open complaint (instant matter), no disciplined cases, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Abandonment means to give up on, withdraw from, or cease or surrender involvement in the project and contract. A Respondent’s actions, or inaction, must be so severe that a reasonable person could infer Respondent’s intent to abandon the project, incurring the consequences of that abandonment. Mere untimeliness or inefficiency does not amount to abandonment.

When a contract is ambiguous, the ambiguity is interpreted against the drafter.

In the instant matter, the Respondent-drafted contract referenced tasks to be performed but lacked meaningful and specific details identifying Complainant’s choices or preferences, and the agreement reached between the parties as to what materials and products were included in the quoted price. Respondent argued that he ceased performance because the parties could not agree to an increased contract price requested by Respondent due to a misunderstanding regarding the siding product Complainant had chosen. Interpreting the contract as against Respondent, the contract includes only “install plywood with the pattern on the outside” with a quoted price. Respondent could have reasonably avoided the cost increase by including the specific siding product details quoted in the contract. However, he failed to do so. Therefore, Respondent’s argument that he ceased performance due to the increased cost of the siding was not a valid legal excuse to abandon the contract.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent abandoned the project or refused to perform work without a legal excuse in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), specifically regarding Complaint Item 3.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), specifically regarding Complaint Item 3.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for two business days Respondent’s License No. 352724.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, February 13, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Jorge Leiva

AZ Remodeling Solutions LLC

[email redacted]

BALLERO CONSTRUCTION LLC

[email redacted]

Chris Allison

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff