Opinion ID: 3169678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for a Change of Venue

Text: [¶13] Hamlin’s motion sought a change of venue. Although the motion included grounds that also appeared to seek recusal, she did not explicitly request “recusal.”2 The court therefore acted within its discretion in addressing only the 2 Bare allegations of bias based on a previous ruling would not require recusal. See In re Michael M., 2000 ME 204, ¶¶ 11-14, 761 A.2d 865. 8 motion to change venue.3 In addressing a motion to change venue, “[t]he court may, upon motion or its own initiative, transfer any case to another division for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice.” 4 M.R.S. § 155(8) (2015). The court acted within its broad range of discretion in granting the change of venue. Based on the record in this case and the parties’ consistent need for extensive judicial attention, the court did not abuse its discretion in transferring this contentious matter to the District Court in Bangor where additional judicial resources were available.