Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 501 (2026)

Personal and transitory actions; inter-county transfers

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Personal and transitory actions, except process of foreign attachment and except as provided in this chapter, shall be brought, when the parties live in the State, in the county where any plaintiff or defendant lives; and when no plaintiff lives in the State, in the county where any defendant lives; or in either case any such action may be brought in the county where the cause of action took place. Improper venue may be raised by the defendant by motion or by answer, and if it is established that the action was brought in the wrong county, it shall be dismissed and the defendant allowed double costs. When the plaintiff and defendant live in different counties at the commencement of any such action, except process of foreign attachment, and during its pendency one party moves into the same county with the other, it may, on motion of either, be transferred to the county where both then live if the court thinks that justice will thereby be promoted; and be tried as if originally commenced and entered therein. Actions by the assignee of a nonnegotiable chose in action, when brought in the Superior Court or in the District Court, shall be commenced in the county or division when brought in the District Court, in which the original creditor might have maintained his action. [PL 1973, c. 378 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1973, c. 378 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9 (Me. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gaeth v. Deacon, 2009 ME 9 (Me. 2009). · cites it 5× “Deacon contends that the default judgment is void because Lincoln County is not the proper venue for the action pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 501 (2008), and therefore service by publication in the Lincoln County News was improper pursuant to M.”

Martel v. Inhabitants of Town of Old Orchard, 404 A.2d 994 (Me. 1979). · cites it 8× “The Plaintiff urges that the Maine Tort Claims Act [1] is applicable to her claim; that, under that Act absent any express venue provisions, the general venue rules set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 501 (Supp.1978) [2] apply, and that she was thus permitted to commence the action in…”

Est. of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “Improper Venue [¶ 30] The Stifels argue that venue in Franklin County was not proper pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 501 (2010), although their argument appears to be part of their challenge to personal jurisdiction rather than to improper venue.”

Powers v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 677 A.2d 534 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “On appeal, Planned Parenthood cites 14 M.R.S.A. § 501 (1980), that provides in relevant part: “Improper venue may be raised by the defendant by motion or by answer, and if it is established that the action was brought in the wrong county, it shall be dismissed and the defendant…”

Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. v. Labbe, 401 A.2d 1005 (Me. 1979). “He relies upon 14 M.R.S.A. § 501, which states: Personal and transitory actions, except process of foreign attachment and except as provided in this chapter, shall be brought, when the parties live in the State, in the county where any plaintiff or defendant lives; and when no…”

Bedard v. Tardif (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 2× “Motion to Transfer Venue Standard Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 501 (2021 ), venue is proper in personal and transitory actions "in the county where any plaintiff or defendant lives.”

Theriault v. Gaughan (Me. Super. Ct 2016). “14 M.R.S.§501. Although the potential witnesses outside of parties reside in Aroostook, all such witnesses previously testified in the criminal trial.”

Riedy v. Whitcomb (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “14 M.R.S. § 501. Usually deference is given to plaintiff initiating venue in the county where he or she resides.”

O'Shea v. O'Shea (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “2 14 M.R.S. § 501. The defendants argue that because none of the parties are Maine residents, venue is improper in this court.”

Kapothanasis v. Kapothanasis (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “See 14 M.R.S. § 501 (2020). Defendant's sole argument that venue is improper can be found in a footnote, where he makes the conclusory assertion, without citation, that venue is improper until the arbitration between plaintiff Paul Kapothanasis and defendant is complete.”

Michaud v. Thibeault (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “14 M.R.S. § 501 (2013). 2012). Because the balance of interests is not strongly in favor of the defendants, the court will not disturb plaintiff's choice of venue.”

Teamsters Union Local 340 v. Guignard (Me. Super. Ct 2014). “Defendant Eaton filed a motion to dismiss on September 27, 2013 and defendant Guignard filed a nearly identical motion on October 7, 2013.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.