Disclaimer: All facts gleaned from the filings stated hereafter are only as truthful as the petitioner. The tone of this article expresses a style of writing historically employed by America’s greatest writers and, as such, is for opinion purposes only. No intentional harm is due. Do not read if the topic of divorce (even your own) causes you emotional distress. Continue at your own risk.
There is something almost matter-of-fact in the way the record unfolds, as if it has no interest in persuasion, only in completion. In the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri, Susan M. Kottman petitions to dissolve her marriage to Aaron M. Kottman, placing before the court a relationship that began on November 18, 2000, and is now described in terms the law can recognize.
The filing, sworn in April 9, 2026, establishes that both parties have remained in Missouri long enough to satisfy the court’s requirements. They continue to reside under the same roof in Wentzville, a detail that sits alongside another: a constructive separation dated to April 1, 2026. The two facts exist together without explanation, as they often do in such petitions, leaving the court to interpret their legal significance.
Three children were born during the marriage, all now over the age of 18. The petition notes that support is still required for those not yet able to provide for themselves, while also stating that no custody plan is necessary. It is a practical distinction, one that separates responsibility from supervision and places the emphasis on financial provision rather than living arrangements.
The document turns, as these filings do, to property and debt. It identifies both separate and marital assets, asking the court to divide them equitably. It also states that neither party is in military service and concludes with the central assertion: the marriage is irretrievably broken, with no reasonable likelihood of preservation.
What remains is the steady movement of the case through the system. The petition does not attempt to tell a full story; it reduces years to dates, categories, and requests. In that reduction is a kind of clarity. The court’s role is not to revisit what has passed, but to assign terms to what comes next, and to close the record with an order that reflects, in legal form, a change already underway.
Please contact VowBreakers for access to documents related to the case.
