To date, no ancillary proceedings have been started in other jurisdictions. Finally, we come to the localized controversy criteria. Bent carried his burden on this issue because most of the controversy surrounding this case took place elsewhere. Other than Bent's alleged guaranty to Community, related to the companion Jay Roads case, and a possible tort action against the State of Vermont, we have no local interest in this case. The decision to transfer or retain a bankruptcy case lies within the sound discretion of the Bankruptcy Court.
Discretion is exactly what it means, the freedom to act according to one's judgment.
Our judgment tells us we should send this case and its adversary proceedings to the District of Massachusetts. Standing by itself, the debtor's voluntary post-petition change of residence is not enough to allow a venue transfer. The application, however, of the eight factors discussed above in addition to the change of circumstances in this case results in the conclusion that Bent's bankruptcy case should be transferred to the District of Massachusetts in the interests of justice. Five of the eight factors support the transfer of this case to the District of Massachusetts. Lastly, Bent's inadequate pro se performance in this Court demonstrates that he needs representation to ensure he receives the fresh start envisioned by the Code.