Achille v. Achille
Annotate this CaseIn June 2012, after the parties had been married for more than 30 years, petitioner Susan Achille filed for a no-fault divorce. At the time, the parties lived in separate residences at the same address. One night in early 2012, respondent George Achille, Jr. went to petitioner's home with a box that contained a gun and told her that he was going to use it. Respondent yelled at petitioner, pursued her through the home, grabbed her by the hair, threw her against a counter, choked her, slammed a door on her, and pushed her to the floor. According to petitioner, respondent had also “hit [her] plenty of times” in the past, including in June 2012 when the respondent had “hit [her] across the face and dislocated [her] jaw.” Respondent denied that the abuse occurred, and testified that, on December 4, the petitioner hit him with an umbrella and fell after tripping over a pair of boots. The next day, petitioner reported the incident to the police. At that time, she did not tell the police about the gun, press criminal charges against the respondent, or seek a protective order. Later that day, the parties had dinner together at a restaurant. On December 6, they drove together to Manchester for mediation regarding the divorce. On December 7, petitioner filed a domestic violence petition in which she described the incident that occurred in her home days earlier. The court issued a temporary domestic violence protective order and scheduled a final hearing for later that month. On December 27, petitioner wrote to police seeking to press charges against respondent arising out of the early December incident. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against respondent. During the next year, at respondent's request, the trial court repeatedly continued the final hearing in the domestic violence case. In December 2013, the trial court ordered that the hearing be rescheduled for “after October 1, 2014” when “[respondent's] criminal matters have been resolved.” Nonetheless, on January 24, 2014, sua sponte, the trial court vacated its earlier scheduling order and ordered that the matter be set for a final hearing, which happened to be the same day as the hearing on the merits in the parties' divorce. Respondent appealed several orders the domestic violence court made, specifically: (1) when the court vacated its earlier order continuing the final hearing in the domestic violence proceeding; (2) when the court denied respondent's motion to recuse the presiding judge from the proceeding, despite having granted the respondent's motion to recuse in the parties' divorce proceeding; and (3) when the court entered a final domestic violence protective order. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.